Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Marlow Water and Yeadon Water) Bill (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Cowes and Yarmouth) Bill,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Cowes and Yarmouth (Isle of Wight)," presented by Mr. Parkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe) Bill,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of. Chepping Wycombe," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Great Western Railway) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Gateshead, in the room of Sir James Benjamin Melville, deceased.—[Mr. Kennedy.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Mr. SMITHERS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any indication of the date upon
which the committees and sub-committees dealing with the question of Russian debts will have finished their labours?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does the hon. Member realise that the Soviet representatives do not mean to settle, and that these negotiations are a fraud?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How do you know?

Mr. SMITHERS: I know it.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the report of the sub-committee saying that they could go no further has been considered by the main committee? It is about a week since it was issued.

Mr. DALTON: The British members of the main committee held a meeting a few days ago and will meet again; I understand, shortly.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Member impress upon them the urgency of dealing with a state of affairs which cannot be allowed to drift on from week to week and month to month?

Mr. DALTON: The members of the main committee are perfectly competent to conduct the business with which my right hon. Friend has entrusted them. Any drifting that has taken place is no doubt part of the historical process which lasted for five years when the hon. Member's Government were in office.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (BRITISH POLICE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British police are employed by the Egyptian Government; and how many of these are in command of Egyptian police?

Mr. DALTON: According to the latest available information, the number of British police of all ranks employed by the Egyptian Government is 208, including four commandants, 35 other officers and 45 head constables.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be convenient for the Under
Secretary to say if the numbers are increasing or decreasing? Have they increased lately?

Mr. DALTON: I will make inquiry. So far as my information goes, I do not think the numbers have greatly changed lately.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

CHINA MERCHANTS STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will request His Majesty's Minister in China to ascertain the reasons why certain British employés of the China Merchants Steam Navigation Company were dismissed when that company was taken over by the Chinese National Government; and will he also ask the Minister to intimate to the Chinese National Government that one of the British employés so dismissed has not yet received the amount of salary due to him in lieu of notice, although judgment was given in his favour, with costs against the National Government, by a Chinese judge of the Shanghai Provincial Court?

Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Minister in China has taken a close interest in the affairs of this company since its reorganisation in 1928, and has made representations from time to time on behalf of certain of its British ex-employés. If the hon. Member will give me the name of the dismissed British employé, to whose case he refers in the second part of his question, I will request Sir Miles Lampson to inquire into the matter, if he has not already done so, and to take any action he properly can.

Mr. SAMUEL: Did I not give the names to the Foreign Office? Did I not send some letters direct to the Foreign Office?

Mr. DALTON: The hon. Member sent certain particulars which I was looking at this morning, but they did not contain as full information as we should need if we are to make further representations.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will try to get all the necessary particulars.

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the situation is now regarding the resumed negotiations as to extra-territoriality in China?

Mr. DALTON: Negotiations were resumed at Nanking on Monday last after a short visit by Sir Miles Lampeon to Shanghai, and are now proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSIES AND LEGA TIONS (NATIONAL FLAG).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 7 and 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) which are the days on which flags are flown at British embassies and legations;
(2) On what grounds His Majesty's embassies and legations do not fly flags on the anniversary of His Majesty's accession, seeing that consulates are required to do so by the consular instructions published on page 122 of the Foreign Office List, 1931; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the relevant diplomatic instructions with a view to securing uniformity regarding British public buildings abroad?

Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's representatives abroad have instructions for the hoisting of the flag on the following occasions: the King's birthday, the Queen's birthday, the Prince of Wales' birthday and Empire Day. They may also fly the flag at their discretion on certain other occasions, such as Accession Day and Coronation Day. The flag is, in addition, flown on other days of importance to the foreign country concerned. I can send the hon. and gallant Member particulars if he so desires. The flying of the flag on Accession Day is optional, owing to the desirability of not unduly multiplying the number of such occasions and thereby diminishing their significance. This consideration does not apply to consulates, where, in many cases, the flag is flown daily throughout the year. As the hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 13th of May, my right hon. Friend sees no reason to revise the instructions on this subject issued by his predecessor.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Would it not be desirable to have uniformity
between the legations and consulates in a matter like this, especially in regard to Accession Day?

Mr. DALTON: That did not appear to be desirable to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, nor does it seem desirable to my right hon. Friend.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why should the Foreign Office always slavishly follow precedent?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (BRITISH CLAIM).

Mr. CADOGAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Captain D. G. Carr, a British subject, has suffered loss to the extent of approximately £500 in the destruction of a convent in Malaga by incendiarism during the recent riots; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to press for compensation?

Mr. DALTON: This case is that referred to in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) of the 18th of May. Captain Carr is furnishing the Foreign Office with full particulars in writing, and the possibility of presenting his claim is now being examined.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the instructions which have been given by His Majesty's Government and on which the new negotiations are being conducted are the same as the previous instructions?

Mr. DALTON: I cannot answer that question. The instructions given to His Majesty's Government's negotiators must remain confidential while the negotiations are in progress.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not desirable that the House should know on what basis the negotiations are proceeding?

Mr. DALTON: Not at present.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Why not?

Sir W. DAVISON: Secret diplomacy.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LOWER DECK PROMOTIONS.

Captain W. G. HALL: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is
yet in a position to make a statement on the findings of the committee set up to inquire into the working of the mate scheme?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As a complete statement on this question would be rather long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to describe in general terms the principal features of the new scheme of promotion from the lower deck which has been approved by the Board of Admiralty as the result of the report of the committee on the mate question and to circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In the first place, it has been decided to drop the title of mate and to promote selected candidates from the lower deck to the rank of acting sub-lieutenant and acting sub-lieutenant (E). The main drawbacks to the existing scheme have proved to be the somewhat high age at which promotion is achieved and the disparity in the qualifications on promotion between the mates and officers ex-cadet.
The new scheme recommended by the committee, and approved by the Admiralty, will, it is hoped, do a great deal to remove these disabilities for those who possess the qualities and application necessary to succeed. By a system of intense tuition, both in educational and professional subjects, in the early years of a young man's naval service, it will in future be possible for a candidate to reach commissioned rank in the executive branch at about the age of 21, and about 22 for engine room artificers and rather over 25 for stokers. Those ages compare favourably with the ages of officers ex-cadet. The time now spent at Greenwich College by mates of the executive branch is three months only. In future there will be a preliminary course at the college of three months, to be followed by the full sub-lieutenant's course of six months. It is hoped by this extra time to enable these sub-lieutenants to compete successfully with other sub-lieutenants, both in their examinations for lieutenant and subsequently in selection for specialisation. The course for the engineering branch will remain as at present.
I must add that the Board have not overlooked the desire of other branches for early promotion to commissioned rank, but, after full consideration of
their claims, they have reluctantly come to the conclusion that such a system is not needed in the Navy and that the present scheme of promotion at a later age through the grade of warrant rank sufficiently meets requirements both of the Service and the branches concerned.

Captain HALL: May I ask why the writer branch have been left out? They have made numerous requests to be admitted to commissioned rank?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I can only say that that matter has been carefully examined by the committee and since by the Board of Admiralty. As I say in the last part of my reply, we have come to the conclusion that it is not needed in that case. They have quite enough outlet in our judgment for promotion to commissioned rank through warrant rank.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to publish the report of the committee?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not intended to publish the report of the committee, but we shall issue a much fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT than I have read to the House.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the far-reaching importance of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, and publish the report in full? It could not do any harm, and it would be very instructive.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should have to consider that, but, as the hon. Member knows, this type of report is not usually published.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen to the men who are mates? Will they have to remain as mates?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should have to look at the point raised by the hon. Member, but my first opinion of the matter is that this scheme will apply to those who will enter under its provisions. Any necessary adjustments will be considered by the Board.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is that scheme to take effect immediately?

Captain HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing this matter, which is most important for the men of the lower deck?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is not a question for me to decide. It must be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Following are the fuller details:

The following are the salient points in the new scheme for the promotion of officers from the Lower Deck.

It has been decided to drop the title of Mate and make use of the ordinary title of Sub-Lieutenant for officers promoted from the Lower Deck.

Sub-Lieutenants (Executive).

Boys in the Training Establishments and sea-going ships who show exceptional promise, and Ordinary Seamen who pass exceptionally well through the Ordinary Seaman training classes and are well fitted in other respects, will be given special opportunities of rendering themselves eligible for selection for Acting Sub-Lieutenant.

They will be drafted to capital ships and large cruisers only, so that all may have equal opportunities of advancing in their profession.

It will be possible for the rating of Able Seaman to be reached after a minimum of 12 months as Ordinary Seaman instead of 15 months as at present, and thereafter every encouragement will be given for such young Able Seamen to pass for Leading Seamen. Opportunities will be afforded to such of them as are candidates for a Commission to obtain the latter rate at the age of 19½ at the earliest. On being rated Acting Leading Seamen they will be sent to another ship to do Leading Seaman's duties.

After not less than six months as Acting Leading Seaman, and at a minimum age of 20½, a candidate for a Commission, if recommended by his Commanding Officer and provided he has passed the qualifying professional and educational examinations, will be eligible to present himself before a Fleet Selection Board. All candidates recommended for Commissions by the Fleet Selection Boards will subsequently be discharged to their Depots and be assembled as a class at Devonport Naval Barracks to go
through a modified Petty Officers' Course; on joining this class to be rated Acting Petty Officer. Those not recommended for a Commission will be confirmed as Leading Seamen if recommended by their Commanding Officer.

On completion of this course candidates will appear before a final Selection Board of Naval Officers at Devonport Barracks. Those who are selected by this board will be appointed acting sub-lieutenants. The minimum age at which this rank can be obtained will be about 21. Those who fail will be confirmed as petty officers in due course, if recommended by their Commanding Officer.

Those acting sub-lieutenants will then join the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and for one term will form a class by themselves, receiving special tuition. At the end of this term they will join up with the ordinary acting sub-lieutenants for the two terms prescribed, and thereafter will undergo the same courses and pass the same examinations for the rank of lieutenant.

On finishing their courses they will be confirmed as sub-lieutenant and be sent to big ships where, as at present, they will join the wardroom mess. Their seniority as sub-lieutenant will be calculated on the same basis as applies to other sub-lieutenants.

The pay of these officers from the date of being rated acting sub-lieutenant will be the same as for officers ex-cadet, but their uniform grant of £150 will be continued.

Sub-Lieutenants (Engineering).

In view of the age on going to sea of ratings in the Engineering Branch, it will be impossible to regulate the age on promotion to acting sub-lieutenant (E.) so as to be as low as in the Executive Branch. This applies especially to the case of stokers. The arrangements to be made will, however, enable an engine-room artificer to reach the rank of acting sub-lieutenaant (E.) at a minimum age of 22, or about a year later than in the Executive Branch. In the case of stokers, who have to pass through the mechanician grade, the minimum age will be rather over 25.

Candidates for commissions in the Engineering Branch will appear before Fleet Selection Boards and a final Selection
Board as in the case of the Executive Branch. Those that are appointed acting sub-lieutenant (E.) will then take the year's course at Greenwich College as at present, receiving the same pay and counting time for promotion in the same manner as an ordinary acting sub-lieutenant (E.), but retaining their present uniform grant.

On completion of their course they will be confirmed as sub-lieutenant (E.) and be sent to sea, joining the wardroom mess.

Mr. MORLEY: 18.
(for Mr. THOMAS LEWIS) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as the result of the report of the inquiry into the mate scheme, a greater number than hitherto of officers commissioned from the ranks will be enabled to take the specialist courses; and whether these officers will be able to get more than one recommendation for promotion between the date of entering the zone and the date of selection for commander, observing that lieut.-commanders (ex-cadet) are able to get up to eight recommendations, that commanders (ex-mate) have been promoted at three years' seniority, and that the lower limit of the zone is now three years also?

Mr. ALEXANDER: This question, will, I think be found to be amply answered in the reply which I have given to question No. 11.

CONDITIONS OF ENTRY.

Mr. MATTERS: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will alter the condition under which British-born lads are refused entry to the Royal Navy unless both their parents are also British-born?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MATTERS: Is the First Lord aware that there are many cases of hardship in which grandfathers and fathers, who have served in the Navy apply for their boys to be taken into the Navy but who are not admitted because of this condition?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have had no cases of hardship brought to my notice. The present rule is founded on long experience, and I have not had brought before me any reasons which would justify me in changing the rule.

Mr. MATTERS: If I bring cases to his notice, will the right hon. Gentleman take them into consideration?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall be glad to do so.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BRANCH.

Sir B. FALLE: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider permitting the ratings of the wireless telegraphy branch to wear the two-piece blue jean working suit now authorised for artisan ratings?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The matter is now under consideration.

PENSIONS.

Sir B. FALLE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the delay in granting pensions to men invalided and to men invalided and retained for treatment in the Royal Naval hospitals; and if he will take steps for the granting of these pensions to be expedited?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not aware of any delay in granting such pensions, but if the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of any particular cases I will have inquiry made. I would, however, point out that invalided men who are retained in Royal Naval hospitals for further treatment are not entitled to receive their pensions until they are discharged from hospital.

Captain HALL: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give an assurance that the recent decision to pay naval pensioners by postal draft, instead of pay order, will not involve pensioners in expense for receipt stamps?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Payment by postal draft will not involve any expense for receipt stamps.

DESTROYER LEADERS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 13.
(for Mr. ROSS) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the policy of the Admiralty that in future destroyer leaders should not be superior in fighting capacity to destroyers; and, if so, upon what considerations this policy is based?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The armament provided for each class of vessel is such as the Admiralty considers adequate for the duties the vessel is designed to perform.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the projected destroyer leaders adequately fall within the category of destroyer leaders and are not merely destroyers?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, in the view of the British Admiralty, who based that view upon their experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further statement to make regarding the continued negotiations between this country, France and Italy with reference to the naval building programmes of the two latter countries, in view of the breakdown of the agreement supposed to have been reached on the 1st March?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 13th May (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1170–2) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to which there is nothing to add.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he made the categorical statement in this House on 11th March, that complete agreement had been reached on 1st March, and what were the reasons which, led him to make that very definite statement?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I made a statement on the 11th March as a result of negotiations in Paris, to which I have nothing to add and from which I have nothing to subtract. An agreement was made on 1st March in Paris, and since then questions of interpretation have been raised which are still the subject of negotiations, and while they are the subject of negotiations I cannot add anything to the reply.

Commander SOUTHBY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that statement was entirely premature?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Certainly not.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these negotiations are still in progress?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

DISTRICT COURTS (PRESS ADMISSION).

Mr. FREEMAN: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at the trial of certain persons charged under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance before the administrative officer of the Hebron district, in Palestine, on 26th April, all entry to the Press was refused; that this was the same district court in which witnesses had been allowed to give evidence behind screens; what was the reason for refusal of entry to the Press; and whether he will issue instructions for charges made against individuals under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance to be published?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I have no information with regard to the trial in question, but inquiry is being made.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will the Under-Secretary give instructions to these officials that facilities for the Press should always be provided in the case of these trials?

Dr. SHIELS: I will consider that matter.

DEVELOPMENT SCHEME.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what is the present position of the development scheme with regard to Palestine; whether negotiations are still proceeding with the Jewish Agency on this question; and whether the Arab Executive are being also consulted?

Dr. SHIELS: As I have stated before, both the Arab and Jewish leaders have been given an opportunity of expressing their views on the proposals of the Government with regard to development in Palestine. I hope that it may be possible before long to make a further statement on the subject; but I am not yet able to say when that can be done.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the Under-Secretary answer the second and third parts of my question as to whether negotiations are still proceeding with the Jewish Agency and whether the Arabs are also being consulted?

Dr. SHIELS: The consultations with the Jewish Agency are practically concluded. In regard to the Arab Executive, the position was that they were invited to consult with the High Commissioner on these proposals, but they said that before they could do so certain conditions would have to be observed, and those conditions made formal consultations impossible. The High Commissioner, however, consulted with a number of Arab leaders in a personal capacity and obtained their views on the proposals, so that what I have said in my answer is correct, that opportunity has been given to both sides to state their views.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: Can the Under-Secretary say whether these proposals will be laid before the House?

Dr. SHIELS: I cannot say definitely, but I hope it will not be long.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (PUBLIC OFFICERS).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Donoughmore Commission expressed the opinion that the salaries of public officers in Ceylon should be subject to the annual vote of the Legislature, and in the Order-in-Council establishing the new Constitution the salaries of the three officers of State are fixed and made non-votable, he will give the reasons for this departure from the recommendations of the Commission?

Dr. SHIELS: The Donoughmore Commission recommended the insertion in the Order-in-Council of an article preserving to the Secretary of State the final decision in all matters affecting the salary and emoluments of all public officers whose appointment is subject to his approval. In view of the special position occupied by the Governor and the officers of State, it seemed desirable to make special provision in the Order-in-Council for their salaries. The officers of State will be members of the Board of Ministers and of the State Council, but will have no votes in those bodies, and in view of the fact that they will be responsible for carrying out the instructions' of the Governor in regard to those matters of which control is reserved to him, it seemed essential to provide that their salaries should not be subject to alteration by the State Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (BIRTHS AND DEATHS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the rate of births and deaths for 1930 or the last available year among the population of Sierra Leone?

Dr. SHIELS: In Freetown, so far as shown in the registrations, the birth rate in 1930 was estimated at 22.04 per 1,000, and the death rate at 27.16. In the Colony, other than Freetown, the birth rate was estimated at 17.5 per 1,000, and the death rate at 18.6. No figures are available for the Protectorate.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (ARAB EDUCATION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the only school in Mombasa for Arabs was established in 1912, that Arabic is not taught in this school, and that the education for Arab children is inadequate in Kenya, he will take steps to see that this condition is remedied?

Dr. SHIELS: The question of Arab education in Kenya is already under consideration, by my Noble Friend and it is proposed to discuss it further with the Director of Education when he arrives in England on leave.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Member take notice that education has been very backward and that something should be done to improve it?

Dr. SHIELS: I may say that recently I had an interview with two Arab representatives from Kenya who are in this country in connection with the Joint Committee, and we went fully into questions of their special grievances, which are now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the maximum number of hours the mui-tsai of Hong Kong may be employed under the ages, respectively, of 15 and of 10 years?

Dr. SHIELS: No girl under 15 may be employed in any industrial undertaking
between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. or for more than five hours continuously. Mui-tsai are normally employed in domestic duties in the home, and there is no statutory limitation of the hours of work in domestic service.

Mr. WHITE: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether seeing that several charitable societies in Hong Kong are receiving financial support from the Government and thereby employ inspectors, he will ask for the reports of these inspectors upon the treatment of the mui-tsai of Hong Kong?

Dr. SHIELS: I will ask the Governor whether such reports can be obtained from inspectors employed by the charitable societies.

Mr. WHITE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many charitable societies in Hong Kong receive financial support from the Government; how many inspectors they employ; and how many of these inspectors undertake the work of oversight of the conditions of the mui-tsai?

Dr. SHIELS: There are at least 10 such charitable societies in which Europeans are interested and in addition a large number of Chinese charitable societies. I will ask the Governor if he can obtain particulars as to the number of inspectors employed and the nature of the work undertaken by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PARACHUTES.

Commander SOUTHBY: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the date of the design of the life-saving parachutes now used in the Royal Air Force; at what minimum height they are considered to be effective; whether any new or more efficient parachute is under consideration; if so, at what height it is effective; and whether it is intended to supply the new type to the Royal Air Force without delay?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has put this question as it enables me, on behalf of my Noble Friend, to deny emphatically the allegation, which has appeared in a
certain newspaper, that the parachutes used by the Royal Air Force are obsolete and are not safe under 800 to 1,000 feet. As regards the first three parts of the question, the parachute now used was originally designed about 1922 and is standard equipment in the air forces of at least 17 countries and is extensively employed in civil aviation. It is difficult to state definitely the minimum height at which it will certainly be effective as this depends, among other things, on the velocity at which the aircraft itself may be falling; hut on two occasions these parachutes have saved life in drops from as low as 150 feet. The Air Ministry is always alive to the possibility of an improved type of parachute, but in its existing form the present standard type is more efficient and effective than any of the other types which have been examined since its introduction. The last two parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Commander SOUTHBY: Has the attention of the Under-Secretary been specifically called to the new type of parachute which was recently tried at Brook-lands?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The statement made in the newspaper to which I have referred is the only one of which I have heard recently, and that was dealt with by the Air Ministry over 18 months ago and turned down.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: There was a test of a parachute recently at Brooklands. That is what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am not referring to newspaper reports.

Mr. GRANVILLE: May I ask whether it is compulsory to wear these parachutes in the Air Force?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the Under-Secretary assure the House that new types are being constantly experimented with and tried?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

WALES (MAIN TRUNK ROAD).

Mr. FREEMAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the
expense and inconvenience caused to the travelling public by the circuitous route through small English villages which forms the only road at present between North and South Wales; and whether he has under consideration any proposal for a main direct trunk road between these two areas wholly within the principality?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My predecessor caused a special survey to be made with a view to determining the most satisfactory line for an improved north and south route through Central Wales, having due regard to engineering and financial considerations. As a result a line has been chosen in co-operation with the highway authorities concerned which follows for the most part existing roads in Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, Breconshire, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. Various improvements of the roads embodied in this route have been accepted under the Trunk Road Programme.

AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any grants have been made from the Road Fund towards the cost of maintenance of the automatic traffic signals either in the Metropolitan area or the provinces; and will he give particulars?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The total number of installations of traffic control by automatic coloured light signals approved up to the 30th April, 1931, for the purpose of maintenance grants is 333. Contributions from the Road Fund towards the maintenance cost of approved signals are payable at the end of each financial year upon submission and approval of claims in respect of the actual expenditure incurred in that year. Up to the present the claims of two authorities for the year 1930–31 have been submitted and are receiving consideration.

Mr. DAY: Can the Minister say what is the amount of the grants in these cases?

Mr. MORRISON: I could not say without notice, but, if my memory serves me right, the percentage grant is 60.

Sir W. BRASS: Is this system being urged upon the local authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, representations have been made to the local authorities, making clear the facilities given by the Ministry, and the divisional road engineers are co-operating with the local authorities.

OMNIBUSES (PASSENGER INSURANCE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that an omnibus which is licensed to carry 26 passengers and which at any time carries 27 becomes uninsured and that the passengers are automatically not covered, he will take steps to alter this position, and for the benefit of the passengers who may become involved in an accident, to enable them to remain insured?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: If the owner of an omnibus, which is insured whilst carrying not more than 26 passengers, allows the vehicle to be used to carry a greater number of passengers, the vehicle is thereby uninsured and the owner commits an offence under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, whereby he renders himself liable to substantial penalties. I understand that it is possible to obtain insurance policies which cover the carriage of additional passengers and it is incumbent upon the owner of an omnibus to take steps to see that his insurance policy covers all passengers who may be carried on the vehicle for hire or reward.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Act at present is visiting the sins of the omnibus drivers upon the unfortunate ordinary public who have no redress?

Mr. MORRISON: The responsibility is with the omnibus owners to see that they are properly covered by insurance.

Sir W. BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that if one extra person is carried the whole of the people on these omnibuses should not be insured?

Mr. MORRISON: The operator must always see that the passengers whom he carries or may carry are covered. II he does not do that, I am not sure that he is fit to be running a public service vehicle.

ROAD WORKS, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the present position of works of main-road construction in and about Newcastle-upon-Tyne with State assistance; how many persons are employed thereon; the average wage paid; and the probable duration of the employment?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: To furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member necessitates inquiry. I will communicate the result to him in due course.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate this inquiry as soon as possible?

Mr. MORRISON: The Ministry of Transport always does that.

TAXI-CABS, LONDON (PROSECUTIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the mobile motor police have instituted any proceedings against crawling taximeter cabs in the London area; and, if so, how many convictions have been secured?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Motor patrols have reported 16 drivers of whom 10 were convicted; in one case no action was taken; three drivers were cautioned; one driver is dead and one case is pending.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

WAYLEAVES.

Mr. STUART BEVAN: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to secure that where the Electricity Commissioners obtain wayleaves over a farm for the high-tension grid provision shall be made whereby the farmer may be provided with suitable power at a reasonable cost?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As my hon. Friend is aware, the high-tension lines of the Central Electricity Board, to which he presumably refers, are necessary for the purpose of interconnecting the principal generating stations and for technical reasons they are not available for connections to individual consumers.
These lines, however, form part of the system which will afford supplies to the local undertakings which are responsible for the low tension distribution to consumers, and will facilitate the provision of supplies wherever a remunerative demand exists.

BRITISH MATERIALS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position in regard to schemes for the North-East of England under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926; whether the material being used is British and so far as possible produced within the area; how many persons are employed; and from what areas they are drawn?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand from the Central Electricity Board that the scheme for North-East England under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, is progressing favourably. The materials being used are all British, and, so far as possible, produced within the area. Mo useful figures can be given regarding the numbers of persons employed, since these vary from week to week, in accordance with the actual work being carried out. The unskilled labour required is drawn, so far as possible, from within the area.

Mr. WEST: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although in these public schemes the material being used is probably British, in a number of other schemes of private enterprise foreign goods are being imported by supporters of the party opposite?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY (REPORT).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the official report on the sugar-beet industry, which he anticipated would be ready in March last, will be published?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The report, which is now in page proof, will, it is hoped, be published next month.

Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to issue supplementary reports from year to year?

Dr. ADDISON: A large report like this raises another matter, but the Ministry from year to year compiles statistics and brings them up to date.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the report be available before the Bill is introduced?

Dr. ADDISON: I think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RELIEF (LABORATORIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that research laboratory buildings and testing shops, used by a manufacturer in connection with his business and for the purpose of scientific research but not directly contiguous to the manufacturer's factories, are excluded from the benefits of derating under Section 3 of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; and if he will state how much it would cost the Exchequer to amend the Act in order to bring such laboratories, etc., within the class of buildings derated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend has not the information necessary for an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer which such an amendment would involve.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to represent the desirability of this being done?

Miss LAWRENCE: I will certainly represent to my right hon. Friend the desire of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (DROYLSDEN).

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of working-class houses built since the 1st June, 1929, in the area covered by the Droylsden Urban District Council, Lancashire?

Miss LAWRENCE: No houses were built with State assistance. Two, of a rateable value not exceeding £26, were built without State assistance in 12 months ended 31st March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WHEAT IMPORTS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which were the two countries from which we
imported the largest volume of wheat for the period 1st January to 14th May, 1931, inclusive; and what were the weights in hundredweights?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): Figures respecting the period up to the 14th May cannot readily be furnished, but during the period from the 1st January to the 16th May, 1931, inclusive, the greatest volumes of wheat imported into the United Kingdom were registered as consigned from Canada (8,005,760 cwt.) and Australia (7,888,537 cwt.).

ANGLO-FRENCH TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the French Government will be asked to embody the most-favoured-nation principle in a new agreement in such a form as to enable the French Government to make concessions in favour of British goods in return for the free market accorded by Great Britain to most French goods which is not accorded by other countries to French goods?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Proposals for tariff reductions in favour of United Kingdom goods have already been submitted to the French Government and are under the consideration of that Government. No new agreement, however, that could be concluded between this country and France would enable the latter country to withhold from other countries which have treaty rights in France the advantages which she might be ready to accord to us.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the French Government, in connection with the making of any new trade arrangements, that the favour which we are told we enjoy from France is of no use to us on the present principle?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Is lace included in these proposals?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Do they include fish?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state
when a report from the Economy Committee will be available to Members of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I gave the finding of one verbally last Thursday. The Committee are pushing on with their task with all possible speed, but I am not yet in a position to say when their full report will be ready.

Sir K. WOOD: Is consideration being given to the advisability of interim reports being issued, in the same way as the report which the right hon. Gentleman gave verbally last week?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so, but I think it my duty to say how very grateful we are to this committee for the expedition which it has shown in pursuing its work. It is sitting at least three days a week, and I think we ought to be very grateful to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the date has yet been fixed for the reassembling of the Round Table Conference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Not yet, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CEMENT PRODUCTS, LTD.

Sir WALTER PRESTON: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Board of Trade was invited by 20 per cent. of the shareholders of the British Cement Products, Limited, to undertake an investigation of the company's affairs, and that on 29th April, 1930, he promised an investigation; and, seeing that the Board of Trade has not held such an investigation, will he now state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The Board were prepared to appoint an inspector to investigate the affairs of the company, but the applicants did not proceed with the application after being informed that the Board could not give an undertaking in advance in regard to the payment of the costs of the investigation. I may
add that an order for the compulsory winding-up of the company was made by the court on 11th May and the affairs of the company will consequently be investigated by the Official Receiver.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DAY: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties experienced by many cinematograph exhibitors in Great Britain on account of their inability to procure sufficient good British sound-films to comply with the quota provisions as laid down by the Cinematograph Act, 1927; whether this situation has been considered by the advisory committee appointed by him under this Act; and whether he will give particulars of any exemptions that have been applied for and granted either to exhibitors or renters for the non-compliance with the quota provisions laid down by the Act?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Difficulty of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers has been alleged in some cases, but the great majority of exhibitors showed the required quota of British films last year and many showed much more than the quota. This year I understand that the supply of good British sound-films is greater than last year. In reply to the last part of the question, I do not think I should be justified in publishing particulars of individual applications for exemption.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman give the number of these exemptions? Is it the case that there are considerably over 100?

Mr. SMITH: I could not give the number without notice, but I think that in relation to the total number of exhibitors it is small.

Mr. DAY: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the question, I asked for the number of exemptions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK PRICES (LONDON).

Sir W. PRESTON: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that one of the principal retail milk-supplying firms in London is charging 2s. per gallon for milk for which they only pay
the farmer 9½d. per gallon, delivered at the London termini; and whether, in view of the importance of milk as a diet for children and invalids, he can take steps to correct the difference between the wholesale and retail prices?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am aware that the usual retail price of milk in London is as stated. The price paid to the farmer under the terms of settlement approved by the Permanent Joint Milk Committee varies according to circumstances, but I have no information as to the particular case referred to. I have no power to alter the prices of milk, but, as the hon. Member will be aware, the Consumers' Council Bill contains provisions which would invest the Board of Trade with certain powers to deal with prices that are found to be excessive.

Sir W. PRESTON: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain what is the actual price which is being paid by United Dairies to-day to farmers; and will he get in touch with United Dairies to try to persuade them to reduce the price to the consumer?

Mr. SMITH: I am afraid that the powers of my Department are rather limited. We did endeavour some time ago to persuade milk retailers to vary prices which we thought were excessive, and they refused to do so. Hence, we are introducing legislation to deal with it.

Major COLVILLE: And are not the Government also taking powers in the Agricultural Marketing Bill to deal with milk prices?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODING, NITH VALLEY.

Dr. HUNTER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to take any steps during the present summer to protect valuable agricultural land in the lower reaches of the Nith valley from further destruction by flooding?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The surveys and inquiries necessary for the preparation of a draft scheme under Section 3 of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930, to provide protection against flooding of lands in the lower reaches of the River Nith are being actively carried out by the Department of Agriculture for
Scotland, but, having regard to the work involved and to the procedure laid down by the Act, I regret that no definite statement can be made as to the probable date by which the scheme, if proceeded with, could be put into operation.

Dr. HUNTER: Can the hon. Gentleman say that there will be no unavoidable delay in dealing with this matter, as seven individuals have suffered great personal loss within recent years by flooding in this area?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am aware of the fact that at least two farms, representing the thrift and the capital of those who own and work them, have been partially destroyed as a result of floods during the last few years, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no unnecessary delay will take place in speeding up the procedure and, if possible, carrying through schemes to avoid such a thing happening in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL PENSIONERS (EMPLOY MENT).

Captain HALL: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for War if naval pensioners are eligible for employment in His Majesty's Yeomen of the Guard and at the United Service Institution; if so, the number employed; and, if not, the reason therefor?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): Naval pensioners are not eligible for appointment as Yeomen of the Guard, a body which is military in origin and character. The Royal United Service Institution is a private institution. I understand that a certain number of naval pensioners are employed there.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS (PURCHASE AND EXPORT).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the circumstances in which a large quantity of arms and ammunition were purchased in this country on behalf of an ex-ruler of Afghanistan; and were they purchased from any Department of the British Government?

Mr. SHAW: A contract was entered into by the War Department with a British firm in 1928 for the purchase of a
quantity of surplus arms and ammunition which were destined for the Government of King Amanullah, but no delivery was taken.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that armaments are being manufactured secretly in this country to-day and exported to Soviet Russia?

Mr. SHAW: No Sir. I am not aware of that.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether in the case of a supplementary question, a Member is under the same obligation with regard to correctness in his facts as he is in the case of putting a question on the Order Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: That obligation applies to all statements made by Members of the House at all times.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (POSTMARKS).

Mr. L. SMITH: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General the number and names of places in this country which in the last two years have been deprived of their postmarks through letters from the districts concerned having been sent to adjoining towns for stamping?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): I regret that this information is not in my possession and could not be collected without considerable trouble and expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — VETERINARY TREATMENT.

Mr. FREEMAN: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. S. P. Male, of Reading, has, during 1930–31, performed a number of experiments on living animals for the purpose of gland grafting, calculated to give pain: that no licence has been granted to this gentleman; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has inquired into the facts of this case and finds that the operations in question were performed by Mr. Male, in the ordinary course of veterinary practice for the purpose of treatment of the
patients. They were, therefore, not experiments within the meaning of the relevant statute, and my right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is no licence required in a case of this description, even although pain is caused?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIME INVESTIGATION.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 59.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the desirability of creating a national detective department whose duty it shall be to investigate immediately crimes taking place in any part of the Kingdom which require special ability and experience?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is still of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for considering a radical change of this kind.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the loose way in which crime is investigated by the provincial police—largely through inexperience?

Mr. SHORT: I am not aware of the dissatisfaction, and I do not agree that there are any loose methods.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

ESTATE DUTIES.

Mr. TINKER: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum of money the Death Duties brought in the first year of their inception; what amount it had grown to 10 years after; the amount in 1921 and in 1930: and will he give the corresponding percentages to the Budget total?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the receipt of Death Duties for the years 1894, 1904, 1921 and 1930 and the corresponding percentages to the total receipts from taxes of the year.

Following is the table:


Year.
Receipt of Death Duties.
Percentage of total receipts from taxes.





£



1894
…
…
10,872,059
12.69


1904
…
…
16,668,959
12.79


1921
…
…
52,191,000
6.17


1930
…
…
82,610,000
12.13

I have taken the year 1894, when the Estate Duty was introduced, as the year of "inception" which my hon. Friend has in mind. But the Death Duties include also the Probate Duty with a history commencing in 1694, the Legacy Duty which dates back to 1780 and the Succession Duty which dates back to 1853.

LAND VALUE TAX.

Mr. GOULD: 63.
(for Mr. WEST), asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have the privilege of exemption from the proposed Land Tax in addition to exemption from Income Tax?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Finance Bill as introduced does not provide for exemption of land belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (TRADE DELEGATION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the Russian Trade Delegation is over here to conduct trade operations and three of its members and their quarters in Bush House have diplomatic immunity, whether their trading operations are exempted from Income Tax either through diplomatic immunity or by special agreement?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Any profits derived by the Russian Trade Delegation from trade carried on by it in the United Kingdom would, under the general principles of International Law, be exempt from United Kingdom Income Tax in the same way as trading profits similarly arising to any other foreign Government.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the close connection between the Russian trade delegation and Arcos carrying on trade operations? They are as close as husband and wife.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILLS FOR PROBATE (COPIES).

Sir W. DAVISON: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what economies the new method of photostat reproduction of copies of wills for probate has effected; and whether, in view of the many complaints as to the illegibility of such photostat reproductions and the fact that in the case of wills written on paper other than of foolscap size an engrossment copy has to be furnished to be photographed in place of the original will, he will consider a return to the former method of probate engrossments?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The savings to the Exchequer are estimated to amount in a normal year to approximately £1,500 per annum; hut savings on a much larger scale will accrue to the public as the result of the new method introduced on the 1st January last. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question, during the initial stages of the new process certain complaints were received relating chiefly to the legibility of photostat copies of wills prepared on brief-size paper, and instructions have been issued that engrossment copies should be furnishel for the time being with wills of this type. These wills, however, form quite a small proportion of the total number of wills admitted to probate. Certain other minor imperfections have also been brought to notice, but these have been remedied and I am informed that practically no complaints are now being received. I see no good reason for adopting the suggestion put forward in the last part of the question.

Sir W. DAVISON: Was the Law Society consulted before this change was made; and seeing that these photographic copies are now illegible, what does the right hon. Gentleman think their state will be in 10 or 20 years' time, and is it not most important that documents which have to be kept should be legible?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot accept the statement in the last part of the supplementary question. As regards stating definitely whether the Law Society was asked to express an opinion, I am afraid I must ask for notice of that part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. GIALDINI (PROSECUTION).

Mr. DAY: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give particulars of the amount of money expended and charged to the British taxpayer in the prosecution of Mr. Gialdini in Italy?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The expenditure incurred to date in connection with the prosecution of Mr. Gialdini in Italy amounts to £594.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Italian authorities to bring this man to trial so that this expense may be stopped? Is he aware that he has been 14 months in prison without trial?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That does not rest with me

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Sir K. WOOD: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons classified as belonging to the building industry recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at the last convenient date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): At 27th April, 1931, there were 156,028 insured persons in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.

BENEFIT.

Mr. L. SMITH: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of rulings by umpires within the last year to the effect that the payment of unemployment benefit is justified in the case of workers abandoning their employment on the ground of the payment of inadequate wages; and the circumstances of each case on which such ruling was given?

Mr. LAWSON: To extract the particulars asked for by the hon. Member would involve the detailed examination of many thousands of decisions, and I do not think I should be justified in asking the Department to undertake this. I may explain that all decisions of the umpire which are of general importance are published and placed on sale. A summary is
also published in the "Analytical Guide to Decisions"; pages 155 to 158 deal with the point, mentioned in the question.

Mr. McSHANE: Before young women are sent to domestic service at the seaside are inquiries made as to their hours of labour and wages?

DROYLSDEN.

Mr. H. GIBSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour how many schemes for the relief of unemployment have been submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee by the Droylsden Urban District Council, Lancashire; the combined cost; the amount of the Government contribution; and the number of persons found employment by the schemes from 1st June to the latest available date?

Mr. LAWSON: Since 1st June, 1929, one scheme of work for the relief of unemployment has been submitted by the Droylsden Urban District Council to the Unemployment Grants Committee. The estimated cost is £10,990. The grant from the Exchequer will be on the basis appropriate to non-revenue-producing schemes. The scheme was due to commence on 11th May last and is estimated to provide employment for 40 men for eight months.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITY).

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the petitions from the Ukrainian minority in Poland?

Mr. DALTON: This question will, I anticipate, be further considered at Geneva during the present week.

ARMAMENTS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps have yet been taken to ask the Special Commission on the Private Manufacture of Armaments to resume its work, in view of the forthcoming Disarmament Conference?

Mr. DALTON: In its resolution of the 19th January last, the Council of the League of Nations requested the Chairman of the Special Commission on the Private Manufacture of Arms to convene the Commission when the Committee of
Experts on Budgetary Questions had completed its work. That committee completed its work on the 28th February, and the question of convening the Special Commission has accordingly been placed on the agenda of the present meeting of the council.

SEX EQUALITY.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to carry out the recommendation of the Conference for the Codification of International Law at The Hague in 1930 that nations should consider how far the principle of the equality of the sexes might be applied?

Mr. DALTON: The Hague Conference recommended that the various States should study the question of introducing into their laws the principle of the equality of the sexes in matters of nationality. The attitude of His Majesty's Government is one of sympathy with this principle, and, as my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 11th of February last, the question has been placed on the agenda of the next Assembly of the League of Nations. I would add that the Foreign Office would not be primarily responsible for any future legislation on this subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be after the Recess and whether he can tell us what is the purpose of the Motion for suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule which stands on the Paper to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: May I take the latter question first? The object of the Motion, if necessary, is to dispose of the second and third Orders on the Paper, namely, the Committee stage of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill and the Third Beading of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Bill. Both these Bills have already been fully debated, and their passage into law as soon after the Whitsun adjournment as possible is essential, if serious and inconvenient delays are to be avoided.
As regards the business when we resume, it will be as follows:
Tuesday, 2nd June: The Allotted Day for the Third Reading of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday, 3rd June: Supply—10th Allotted Day. The Vote will be announced later.
Thursday, 4th June: A Motion setting up a Time Table for the further stages of the Finance Bill. [Interruption.] I may say that until this morning that day was to be given for the first day of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, but the indications on the Order Paper this morning compelled me to put that down as announced. If any agreement can be come to on a reasonable basis between now and then, that will not be taken.
Friday, 5th June: The business will be announced on Tuesday, 2nd June.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. BALDWIN: As the right hon. Gentleman is taking what I believe to be a novel course in regard to the Guillotine, will he tell us how soon we

shall have the terms of the Motion on the Paper, as it will require some consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree. As a matter of fact, it is not novel, because it was done in 1910 and 1914. It is hoped that the Resolution will appear on the Notice Paper to-morrow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was quite impossible to hear what the Guillotine was for.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the Prime Minister say why the Government only follow precedents with regard to the flying of flags and neglect all other good precedents?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We still do not know what it is about.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 119.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[3.40 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hoffman, P. C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Duncan, Charles
Horrabin, J. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Ede, James Chuter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Ammon, Charles George
Edge, Sir William
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Arnott, John
Edmunds, J. E.
Isaacs, George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jenkins, Sir William


Ayles, Walter
Elmley, Viscount
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
England, Colonel A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Barnes, Alfred John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Barr, James
Foot, Isaac
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Batey, Joseph
Freeman, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kelly, W. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Benson, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Kirkwood, D.


Blindell, James
Gill, T. H.
Knight, Holford


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Glassey, A. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bowen, J. W.
Gossling, A. G.
Lang, Gordon


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gould, F.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bromfield, William
Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brooke, W.
Granville, E.
Lawrence, Susan


Brothers, M.
Gray, Milner
Lawson, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Leach, W.


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Burgess, F. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lees, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Groves, Thomas E.
Leonard, W.


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Logan, David Gilbert


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longbottom, A. W.


Chater, Daniel
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lunn, William


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harris, Percy A.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Haycock, A. W.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Senham)


Cowan, D. M.
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayes, John Henry
McElwee, A.


Daggar, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
McKinlay, A.


Dalton, Hugh
Herriotts, J.
MacLaren, Andrew


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hicks, Ernest George
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Day, Harry
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


McShane, John James
Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Pybus, Percy John
Sullivan, J.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sutton, J. E.


Mansfield, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


March, S.
Raynes, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marcus, M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Markham, S. F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Thurtle, Ernest


Marley, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tillett, Ben


Marshall, Fred
Romeril, H. G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Mathers, George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Toole, Joseph


Matters, L. W.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Tout, W. J.


Maxton, James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


Messer, Fred
Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Vaughan, David


Millar, J. D.
Sanders, W. S.
Walkden, A. G.


Mills, J. E.
Sandham, E.
Walker, J.


Milner, Major J.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Montague, Frederick
Scott, James
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Morley, Ralph
Scrymgeour, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sexton, Sir James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Presten)
Wellock, Wilfred


Mort, D. L.
Sherwood, G. H.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Muff, G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
West, F. R.


Murnin, Hugh
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Westwood, Joseph


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
White, H. G.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Oldfield, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sinkinson, George
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palin, John Henry.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wise, E. F.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)



Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sorensen, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AVES.—


Pole, Major D. G.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.


Potts, John S.
Stephen, Campbell



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dawson, Sir Philip
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Albery, Irving James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ferguson, Sir John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Simms, Major-General J.


Bracken, B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Somerville, A. A. (Windson)


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyen


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Wells, Sydney R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lymington, Viscount
Withers, Sir John James


Cranborne, Viscount
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Muirhead, A. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captian




Bourne.

BILLS REPORTED.

WALLASEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AYLESBURY JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS BOARD) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BIRKENHEAD AND CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HERNE BAY WATER AND SOUTHEND WATER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH WATER AND GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in pursuance of Standing Order 91 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion., the Lindsey County Council (Sandhills) Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Public Works Facilities Scheme (West Surrey Water) Bill.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Acton Swing Bridge) Bill, without Amendment.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Middlesex County Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Doncaster to construct additional waterworks; to establish an aerodrome undertaking; and to provide and work trolley vehicles; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their water, light railways, gas, and electricity undertakings; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough: and for other purposes." [Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled. "An Act to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the urban district of Romford; and for other purposes." [Romford Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

ROMFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members
from Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte and the Marquess of Hartington; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Latham and Sir William Wayland.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Consumers' Council Bill): Miss Lee; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Sinkinson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

As amended, considered [1st Allotted Day.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of plural voting.)

The following shall be substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act as amended by Section four of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, 1928:
(1) Every person registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency shall, while so registered (and, in the case of a woman, notwithstanding sex or marriage), be entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for that constituency, but a person, shall not vote at a General Election for more than one constituency."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of moving this proposed new Clause is really a drafting one. It makes it quite clear that there shall not be any plural voting in any subsequent elections. That was already contained in the last two lines of Clause 3 of the Bill in the words:
after the passing of this Act no person shall vote at a General Election for more than one constituency.
It was thought, however, that it would be better in incorporate that in a separate Clause instead of by reference to the prior enactments of 1918 and 1928, and to set out the exact Clause as it would read as amended in order to make it quite clear.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made perfectly clear the object of this proposed New Clause. It seeks to abolish the last vestiges of plural voting. Those vestiges remain in the university vote and the business vote, and I desire to offer a few observations on these matters. As regards the university vote, although I possess one, I have not one-hundredth part of the qualification to speak on the matter as is possessed by hon. Friends
who represent universities. As regards the business vote, although only eking out a humble living in business, I pro pose to offer a few observations on that matter. The principles are precisely the same. What applies to the abolition of the business vote applies equally to the university vote; the Minister of Health said on the Second Beading that if they opposed the university vote they must, on the same principle, oppose the business franchise, and I suppose the converse would hold good.
I notice that during the Debate on this matter the university vote secured a great many defenders on this side of the House and on the other side, but that not so much zeal and fervour were shown in favour of the business votes. I am rather at a loss to know why there should be this distinction. Is it that there is anything ignoble or sordid about business occupations? We are faced with this curious position, that whereas there appears to be a good case for giving a special representation to, say, a lecturer in the University of Oxford on the gold standard and the incidence of tariffs, yet the business man who is seeking to put into practice the lessons he has learned from the lecturer is to be denied the special representation which many Members would like to give him. The laboratory experiment is to be encouraged; its commercial realisation is to be deprecated.
As to the favoured position of the City of London, I fail to see any reason in logic why Manchester, Sheffield or any other of our great provincial cities should be treated differently. It is said there is a sentiment and a glamour about the City of London. Is there no glamour about the City of Glasgow? Has sentiment deserted Sheffield? There is no distinction in logic between the position of those cities. It was urged that we must preserve the present situation in the City of London lest we should give over its representation to charwomen and caretakers. If so, why is it fair to give the representation of the Exchange Division of Manchester over to charwomen and caretakers? The same consideration would apply in other big towns. Similarly, why should the caretakers of London be denied the opportunity of electing a representative such as is to be given to the caretakers of Manchester?
The whole situation is riddled with illogicality and should not be allowed to stand.
When I said there were few defenders of the business vote in the Debate to which I have referred I would like to exempt the gallant defence made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), but I could not help noticing the denunciations which fell upon him. He was called "reactionary," and "antiquated," it was said his speech was 100 years old. The right hon. Gentleman and myself both graduated at the same University, the home of lost causes. It may well be that under this Government the cause of the business man is a lost cause, but the time may come when we may yet reach the same privileged position already reached by members of trade unions and miners leaders. The right hon. Gentleman was taken to task by Members of the Opposition because he criticised the counting of noses as not being the most suitable process in a modern democracy. The Home Secretary said that it was better to count noses than to break them, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) severely took my right hon. Friend to task and alleged, with some truth, that there was a brain behind each nose. My right hon. Friend can stand those denunciations better than I can. The slings and arrows will bounce off his mail jacket more readily than from mine, and so, in adopting the same line of argument, I have thought it well to fortify myself with some authority behind which I can shelter. The particular authority I have selected is the Prime Minister, who in the Debate on the principal Act in 1917, said:
Democracy does not consist of counting noses; it consists of intelligence, activity and enthusiasm, and upon the counting of that political vitality upon which progress depends quite as much as upon the mere dull and dead mechanical majority as opposed to the equally dull and dead mechanical minority.
When it comes to putting these complicated problems into terse concise English, no one can do it like the Prime Minister. He goes on to say:
As a matter of fact, the national representation of this House is just as good as representation can be, unless you file off all the Gothic roughness and peculiarities of representation and make it a mere
mechanical representation of the relationship between party and party, which means absolute deadlock all the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1917; cols. 2227–30, Vol. 93.]
Why should the Gothic roughness of the Members of the City of London be left unfiled? Why should it be removed from the admirable representatives of the City of Birmingham? There, again, there is no logicality in any of these proposals. If I might very humbly put my own definition of what is desirable in the interests of democracy and of the electoral system in place of the Prime Minister's, I should say that it ought to be as fair as humanly possible and a mirror of the nation we represent. We in this House-are a nation in little, a nation of 615 people representing in all its variety and intricacies the great nation of 45,000,000 who sent us here. Hon Members will recollect the well-known lines in which the poet says:
Life, like a dome of many coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance of eternity.
If the white radiance of our representative system is not to be stained by the lives of those we represent it can remain nothing but a monotonous and blinding glare.
4.0 p.m.
Reference was made in the last Debate to the value of sectional and functional representation. I think there is a good deal to be said for it. We have it in embryo now in the representation of the trade union leaders and miners' representatives, in some degree in the representation of the Civil Service and the co-operators. It may be that that system will be extended. The retention of the business vote is admittedly a form of sectional and functional representation. There is no time for me to develop that point, but I think there is a good case to be made out for extending that representation. The Home Secretary gave certain reasons for abolishing the plural vote. He said those votes were the symbol of wealth, good fortune, position and vested interest. Is not that really a little bit of rhetoric, and slightly inaccurate? If he were to go into the business quarters I know what he would find. He would find positions of great anxiety and risk, not so much positions of good fortune and vested interests. He supports this Measure because it removes the last vestiges of inequality. Is that
necessarily good for the nation? We are not all equal. Under any Government it would be difficult for us all to be equal. If a man is more intelligent than others then, other things being equal, his opinion is more worth having than that of the man who is less intelligent, and no law and no institution, however much it may say his opinion is of equal value, can make it so. I do not suggest that a business man is necessarily a man of more intelligence than, say, a man who sweeps the streets. In the absence of any educational test of the relative value of those two gentlemen, I would refer the Home Secretary to a writer whose works he must know very well, that is, John Stuart Mill, and I have no doubt that, in preparing himself for this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has read him most carefully. This is what was said by Mill, a man whose opinions still have great weight:
Through the exceptional privilege of two votes belongs rather to superiority of means than of intelligence, I would not abolish it where it exists since until a truer test of education is adopted, it would be unwise to dispense with an imperfect one.
I venture to say that, with certain corrections, that is not an unwise statement, and it might well be that had that principle been acted upon in our gradual development, the decisions arrived at might have been wiser. The Home Secretary went on to say:
The law now assumes the right of every adult person to have a voice in the election of a Member of Parliament, and it is an inevitable corollary that, while everyone should be entitled to a voice, no one should be entitled to more than one voice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1931; col. 1476, Vol. 247.]
Why is that inevitable? Why is it a corollary? In an ideal State, where intelligence could be measured, undoubtedly we should endeavour to apportion voting power in some degree commensurate to the deservedness, or the intelligence or moral worth of the voters, and there is no reason whatever to suppose, because the law assumes one man one vote, any inevitable corollary follows from it, and that at some subsequent stages we should not modify that, and give votes according to the deserts of those who are to have them. The time might come when it might be desirable to confer the privilege
of more than one vote in order to stimulate the recipients to further interest in public welfare. There are today many people who are stimulated to activity at the prospect of putting after their name the initials "J.P.," and I see no reason why, in due course, people should not be enabled to put after their names the initials "P.V."
The Home Secretary went on to say that a person had a right to the vote, but, as has been pointed out, in language immeasurably superior to mine, by the Noble Lord the Senior Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), it is not a right, but a duty, a function. It is truer to say that the law imposes a duty or function upon the elector, than that it confers a right upon him. I rather think that the Home Secretary has been misled by his misreading of the political philosophers of the 18th century, such as Hobbes—I do not mean the cricketer—Locke, Rousseau and other philosophers of that time, who had great influence upon their age, but whose theories are completely exploded to-day, and if the Home Secretary still cherishes his opinion about natural rights, there are many more modern works he can read to undeceive himself. His real reason is that this business vote is opposed to him own party. I gather that there are not more than 500,000 out of 25,000,000 electors, and they are spread over a large number of towns. It is assumed that they do not vote Socialist, and therefore they have got to go. I cannot help thinking that there is a certain amount of—he will forgive me for saying—meanness in this decision. The House remembers the old principle of "No taxation without representation." There is precious little effective representation nowadays for the taxpayer, and this is sweeping away one of the few vestiges left. Again, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of his old friend John Stuart Mill, who said:
It is important that the Assembly which votes the taxes, either general or local, should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their votes of other people's money, have every motive to be lavish, and none to economise.
That may not be literally true to-day, but it contains the germ of truth, and the germ of protection remains to the taxpayer in the business vote.
In conclusion, is this proposal really in the best interests of democracy? That is, after all, the only true canon by which this should foe judged. Party considerations should have no influence whatever upon it, however valuable as by-products. And if we get under a constitution a situation by which an extremely numerous section can reduce to political impotence some other section of the population, then we get a state of affairs which must inevitably make that democracy unstable, and antagonise a section of citizens, perhaps not numerous, but in an industrial country very important, and I venture to say that injustice, even under the name of democracy, remains injustice.

Mr. BUCHAN: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has given us a very few words of his wisdom on this matter of plural voting. I must, in seeking for a defence of the Clause, resort to the more copious supply of the Home Secretary in a speech he made on the Second Heading of this Measure. The Home Secretary, as far as I remember, defended the abolition of the plural vote on the broad grounds of the fundamentals of democracy. His argument was that in a democracy all citizens are equal; therefore, no one should have more than one vote. I am inclined to question the premise. No doubt all citizens must foe equal in the sight of the law, and we are told by theology that all are equal in the sight of their Maker, but I should have thought that in most others matters they were grossly unequal, especially in their capacity for citizenship.
But let us take the dictum as it stands: In a democracy all citizens are equal, and, therefore, every man and women should have one vote, and no more. That is a very simple and intelligible proposition, and it makes an excellent popular slogan "One man, one vote" or, as I used to remember it in a more popular form, "One adjectival man, one adjectival vote." It is simple to remember and easy to understand. But it is never quite safe to try to put the principles of a big thing like democracy into that kind of pocket formula. The merit of democracy is that it is extraordinarily elastic and able to adapt itself to new conditions. I can imagine a state of society where the Home Secretary's slogan would be entirely
justifiable, a simple, primitive society where all the citizens were farmers, and the same kind of farmers. But we are not legislating for the times of Abraham and the patriarchs, and it seems to me that this simple arithmetical idea of representation has no meaning in Britain to-day. It is really a bequest of the old-fashioned Victorian Radicalism, and one of the main defects of that creed was that it always tried to make political problems more simple than they were, and that it had a little dapper answer for every question on heaven and earth.
What kind of society is it in which we live? We are all agreed that we have a highly complicated social and economic life with innumerable cross-currents. My answer to the Home Secretary is that in any society which is highly varied and elaborately differentiated, you will get, as a simple matter of fact, whether you want it or not, inequalities in voting power. You will have views and interests organising themselves privately and demanding successfully some increase in representation. Those interests may be of many kinds—professional, religious, economic—and if they are strongly supported they will manage to secure a higher representative power than is warranted by the numerical state of their numbers. That is my simple argument on behalf of plural voting. In a society like ours you have got it, and you must have it, and it seems to me that it is a far wiser thing to embody it in our Statute law than to give it that undue, and probably mischievous, power which comes to all things which have existence in reality, but which are not officially recognised.
I go further. I think that plural voting is not only inevitable; I believe it to be in the interest of the State. Most of us agree to-day that democracy is outgrowing the machinery which we have invented to give effect to it. Most of our problems to-day are administrative, business, practical questions, where the one thing to be sought is efficiency, and there is a growing belief that democratic institutions and efficiency cannot go together. You find that belief in many parts of the Continent. You find it in Hitlerism and in Fascism, and, I think, you find it in the New party which has recently come to birth on the other side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stillbirth!"]
It is because I do not believe in these melodramatic expedients that I want to see the necessary revision attempted within the four corners of constitutional practice. The vote may be looked at in two different ways. You may regard the vote as the right and the privilege of the individual, his protection, a guarantee for his liberties. Or you may regard it as his duty, as part of the machinery to turn the national mind and will on to national problems.
The Home Secretary, in his speech on the Second Reading, said a very interesting thing. He said that, in his opinion, the poor man, the weak man, the uneducated man should have his voting power aggrandised as compared with his more favoured brother, because he needed protection more. That view was received on this side of the House with a good deal of incredulity, but I think that there is a great deal to be said for it, if you regard a vote only as a privilege, a perquisite, a protection of the individual. But if you regard the vote also, as you must regard it, as part of the instrument of an efficient Government, you cannot accept that view, for if you follow it to its logical conclusion, then the person whose voting power would be most emphasised would be the mental defective. We must regard the vote as the machinery for bringing the whole intelligence and knowledge of the nation to the solution of national problems.
From that point of view, I think plural voting can most cogently be defended. Problems of Government do not get easier as time goes on, and surely it is right to bring, in a special form, to assist their solution for those groups and interests which happen to possess a special knowledge and experience. As an example I would give the great organisation of the trade unions. They represent organised labour, and they are the repository of a knowledge which is not shared by a very large number of other hon. Members. I would give as another example the business community, which is also the repository of a certain kind of experience and knowledge not shared by the professional, academic, and working classes. My third example is that of the universities. It seems to me that these great groups, these great reservoirs of special experience, should be given special representation if they are to row their
full weight in the national boat. I have quoted three instances which, in our present system have, either directly or indirectly, a special representation. I do not say the particular form in which they enjoy it is the best. I think it might be greatly improved, but until we set ourselves to a scientific revision, I want to keep the present practice and retain the present principle. On these grounds, I support the retention of the business vote and the university vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) has defended the retention of the business vote, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the matter of the university vote. I gather that it is the intention of the Government not to oppose the former decision of the House on this matter. But if plural voting is abolished there is a danger that university representation may become a rather attenuated thing. That will not apply so much to my own constituency, the Scottish Universities, and it would not apply in a very great degree to the older universities of England or to London. But it would hit very hardly smaller units like Queen's University, Belfast, and the University of Wales. I think that the effect will be only temporary, because the electoral roll of the universities is growing so fast that it will soon be very large. At the moment my own electorate is between 10,000 and 50,000, and in 10 years' time it may be nearly 70,000. Also I think there will always be a large proportion of university graduates who will prefer the university vote to any other. But in the meantime to abolish plural voting would undoubtedly weaken the vitality and prestige of university representation.
If I thought plural voting was against the national interests I should have no more to say, but for the reason I have given that is not my view. Therefore, I do not see any reason for the change proposed in the new Clause. A business man who votes for his house and his office has two entirely different interests. The graduate who votes for his home and his university, represents the special interests of science and education, and the general interests of the ordinary constituency. I do not see why he should not continue to serve the State in both capacities. If the university vote
is to be retained, surely it is in the national interest to make it as vital and efficient as possible.
I believe that is the general opinion of the British people. I know that it is very easy to dogmatise as to what is the opinion of the British people, and sometimes it is very hard to prove it. But here we have certain data. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the decision of the House to retain the university vote was received with approval by an enormous proportion of the Press of this country. Independently altogether of political opinion, I think I may say that, with few exceptions, the decision of this House to retain university representation met with the approval of the whole British Press opinion. When the proposal to abolish university representation was first made, there was a protest from every part of this country and of the Empire, from men of the highest distinction in the professions, arts and sciences, a very large number of whom held political principles utterly different from those belonging to the majority of university representatives. I think it may fairly be said that the great bulk of informed opinion in this country is in favour of the retention of the university vote, and of its retention in real vigour and substance, and not as a shadow.
I am aware that this House, during the period for which it is elected, is wholly independent, and it is not only its right but its duty to come to conclusions without any regard to opinion outside its doors. That follows the fine old doctrine that a Member of Parliament is not a delegate but a representative, that he is not sent to this House to do what his constituents tell him, but he is sent here to use his brains as far as he can for their benefit. That is true, but it is not the whole truth. To-day, there are many criticisms of Parliamentary institutions, and one of the chief criticisms is that Parliament very soon after its election drifts out of touch with national opinion. There may be truth in that. I would suggest to hon. Members that this House, if it is to retain its traditional prestige and repute, should not be insensible to outside currents of thought, and that Parliament has always been at its strongest
when it has lent a ready ear to the informed and considered opinion of the nation at large.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish universities (Mr. Buchan) and to his defence—the only defence—of plural voting. The hon. Member referred to Victorian Radicalism. I am a Victorian Radical, and I recognise as fully as the hon. Member the inequalities that exist in regard to the exercise of the franchise. Nevertheless, I do not see any reason why one man should have more voting power than another. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has pointed out very truly that the university representative has more special knowledge to place at the disposal of the House of Commons than the ordinary representative, but he has not given any reason to show why universities should be given special representation. The hon. Member has told us that the vote is a guarantee of protection of the rights of the people, and the exercise of the vote is a duty which they have to perform towards the State. I suggest that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has not shown us the necessity for giving extra representation to special interests in the House of Commons. Undoubtedly, the wealthy have power which is not possessed by those who do not possess wealth, and the present machinery is in favour of the wealthy. If you are going to weight your electoral machine, it should not be weighted in favour of the strong, but in favour of the weak.
No one need be afraid that wealth will not exercise sufficient influence in any community, and, if you want to weight your machine, I think the Home Secretary was quite right when he said that those who are not wealthy but are weak, and poor, and otherwise helpless, should not have any extra weight placed upon them in the voting machine. I know that wealthy people will have their due weight, but it is a bad argument to say that wealth, influence and special knowledge should have special representation in this House. It is not necessary to be afraid; they will always have their fair share, and rather more than their fair share, of representation in this House. I think that the same thing applies to university representation. Those hon.
Members who sit for university seats are not the only university Members in this House. I myself am devoted to my own university of Oxford. I shall never forget the lessons which Oxford taught me, and, so far as I have any influence in this House, I owe it to the learning and knowledge which Oxford gave to me. I would put it to the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities that we who have had the advantage of university education have far more representation in this House in proportion to those who have not been to the universities.
I am not afraid of democracy, and I am sure that learning, knowledge and ability will find their due relation in those who are sent here, without weighting the electoral machinery in order to give special representation to the universities. That seems to me to be all the more the case because I am bound to say that, throughout the 25 years during which I have been in and out of this House, I do not think that the university representatives have in all cases been specially selected on grounds of learning. I find that the party system is just as strong in our universities as it is in other communities, and, therefore, I am happy to think that my university will have representation in this House through the knowledge and ability of the sons of Oxford, without its being necessary to choose special representatives of the University of Oxford, brilliant and distinguished as some of them have been in my time. I do not think that the hon. Member has really made out his case. With most of what he said I agree, but I think he just failed to establish the link between his argument and this House. I say once more that it is not necessary to weight the machine in favour of wealth, learning, and ability, because those attributes will find their natural level and have their full influence in the community, and, therefore, will be represented here in this House.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help thinking that the speech to which we have just listened comes with a singularly ill grace from the right hon. Gentleman by whom it has been delivered. What, after all, is the major purpose of this Bill, and by whom is it inspired? The major purpose of the Bill is to give two votes to a certain minority, and the people who have asked for it
and who have secured it from the Government are the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely, the labourer is worthy of his hire!

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That demand is not made on the ground of superior intelligence, superior learning, or any other superiority; it is made on the ground of political weakness, because, it is said, they are weak and poor and otherwise helpless. For that reason, they are to have two votes, but nobody else is to have more than one. The right hon. Gentleman who demands two votes for his own party refuses them to learning—

Mr. LEIF JONES: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me. I have not asked for two votes for anyone.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: What is the Bill for but to give two votes to the Liberal party because it cannot get into Parliament without them? [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman at last understands. [Interruption.] I do not intend to pursue that matter further; I have said all that I want to say on that subject; but I want to put in a plea, which I think has not yet been made, for the retention of the business vote. I confess that, as regards the university vote, it seems to me to be singular that at this time, when the universities are, if I may use that much abused word, as democratic as they have ever been before, when they are drawing in ever larger degree from all classes of the community, and are representative, and widely representative, of classes which a few score years ago could hardly be found there—it seems to me to be singular that just that moment should be chosen to deprive them of their special representation, and that it should be chosen and defended on the ground that they are given a party representation.
Cannot the party opposite ever look a little ahead? Cannot they have a little imagination? Do they suppose that, if university representation remains, with this new influx of life from new quarters, the party representation of the universities will always remain the same? Do they not see that they are
taking that representation away just at the time when it is beginning to come within their reach to acquire that representation for themselves? [Interruption.] I stand to defend it, and with the greater conviction because I am perfectly conscious that, although the university vote at the present time may be a vote favourable to my party and to the views with which I am connected, that opinion will not always remain with the same unanimity that it has at the present time.
I rose, however, as I have said, to make a plea for the business vote which has not yet been made. I represent a purely industrial constituency. Its life, its employment, depends upon the industries which are carried on in it. Within my own memory a change in the character of its population has, however, taken place. Many of the workpeople engaged in its industries now live outside the district, and, contrary to what was the case in my youth, I think practically every employer now lives outside the constituency. It is one of the misfortunes attendant upon the growth of our great cities that different classes of the population are apt to become segregated in separate camps, to live, in their leisure hours and when they are at home, divorced from one another. I think that that is a great weakness for the municipal life of the city, and that it is a social danger; and anything which will cause those who make their money in these great factories to take an interest in the districts in which they make their money and do their business, as well as in the districts in which they have their homes and rejoin their families, seems to me to be a public advantage to the community and to every class of the community. Because the retention of this vote is one of the few remaining links between the life of the industrial community which dwells around the factory and that of those who provide the capital for and conduct the business of the factory, I should be very sorry to see it abolished at the present time. It is not a very large influence, but it does serve to connect up the lives and interests of those two classes, which too many forces tend to drive apart, and, as such, it is to my mind a most valuable element in social stability.

Miss RATHBONE: I am one of those who, on most constitutional questions, are in sympathy with those who have proposed this Clause rather than with those who are opposing it, and for that very reason I should like to tell the House why I regret the Clause. I admit that at first sight the arguments against plural voting seem so self-evident as scarcely to need stating, and, indeed, they are self-evident provided that one grants the premises on which they are founded. I take it that the case is really based on a conception of Parliament and its function in the life of the nation which is very attractively simple, and which was admirably set forth by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party; but it is, I venture to suggest, a very simple idea which, when applied to complicated conditions, becames superficial and crude. The conception of Parliament which it implies is really that Parliament consists of 615 individuals, each representing, on an average, with the exception of University Members, roughly speaking 50,000 individuals; and, since those 50,000 individuals cannot all have their way in the choice of a representative, rough justice will be done, so the argument goes, if every one of the 50,000 is enabled to poll his or her full weight in the ultimate choice between two candidates, every other candidate having been eliminated by the device of the Alternative Vote. That is the whole hypothesis upon which the Alternative Vote and the voting proposals of this Bill are based.
According to this view, which regards an elector merely as an arithmetical unit, I admit that the system of grouping these arithmetical units in geographical areas which contain roughly speaking the bedrooms of 50,000 electors is as good as any other; but is that the right conception of Parliament, or of the nation of which Parliament is supposed to be the mirror? What, after all, is a nation? Is a nation just an aggregate of 44,000,000 human beings, or has the nation an individuality which transcends its parts? Has it a head, a brain, a trunk, and limbs? If so, then I suggest that, as a mirror for such a nation, a Parliament elected on a flat geographical basis is just about as good a representation of a nation as a gollywog is of a
human being. Everything that gives distinctness of outline, flexibility of limb, or clarity of articulation in the human being is furred and blurred.
The real truth is that one and the same person cannot simultaneously represent stockbrokers, domestic servants, university professors, dock labourers, clerks, and artisans, and, when these individuals are shepherded into groups under banners labelled "Liberal," "Labour," or "Conservative," it does not really meet the difficulty. It becomes more and more clear as time goes on that these political distinctions are relatively confused and fictitious, while the real differences which arise from differences of education and occupational status are real and permanent. Not long ago, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) pointed out that very view in almost the very words that I have been using. He complained that so many representatives of working-class constituencies were stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors, and the rest. He said that could not rightly represent the working-class point of view, and he looked forward to the time when all working-class constituencies would be represented by genuine working-class representatives. I sometimes wonder whether the House realises exactly what that would mean. It would mean a House representative of one class only, and that the class of weekly wage earners.
I have not the figures by me which afford arithmetical proof, though I am endeavouring to obtain them, but I think it is certain that in almost every constituency in the country, certainly in the vast majority of constituencies, the weekly wage earners and those of equivalent economic status are in the majority, and I sometimes wonder if people realise the great change in that respect which was brought about by the Acts of 1918 and 1925 in the class character of constituencies. I am not referring to the fact for which all women must class the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) among those for whom more especially we are bound to pray for enfranchising women. I am referring to the fact of the enfranchisement of domestic servants, and I think that small fact has seldom been recognised in respect of the importance it gives to the character of constituencies.
Take an example which has been recently made out for me in connection, with an analysis of working class conditions by the University of Liverpool. It has ben reckoned that, taking Liverpool as a whole, the proportion of persons belonging to the wage-earning class is between 67 and 82 per cent. That is the figure for all the constituencies. I tried to get figures taken out for three typical working-class wards and three exceptionally prosperous wards in Liverpool, and, taking householders alone, it shows that in the working-class wards about 89 per cent. belong to the working-classes and in the more prosperous wards the proportion falls as low as 31 per cent. That leaves out the domestic servants. If you consider a well-to-do neighbourhood, roughly speaking, it comes to this, that in the very wealthy houses the proportion of domestic servants over 21 years of age would more than balance the number of members of the family over 21, in a middle class household they would be about equal, and in the small servant keeping class of house the members of the family would outbalance the domestic servants. The importance of that fact is that, when you add the domestic servant class to the householders in residential neighbourhoods, in the vast majority of constituencies they bring up the weekly wage-earner vote to the majority of the constituency. I should think there is a bare handful of constituencies in which that is not the case.
We sometimes speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. Few people realise that here and now in Great Britain we have the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is an arithmetical fact. If we do not feel the heel of the oppressor, it is because the proletariat is innately conservative and uses the enormous power that is placed in its hands with sometimes almost excessive moderation. I do not want to have it supposed that I regret universal suffrage, I worked for it and I gave the best years of my life to bringing it about, and I believe it has worked results which transcend all that I ever expected from it. It is one of those great forces which arise from time to time which
Sweep through the dull, dense world, compelling there
All new successions to the forms they wear.
If we had to choose between disfranchising the dock labourer and the domestic servant, or the stockbroker and the graduate of the university, without hesitation I would sacrifice the stockbroker and the graduate, because they have other means of defence. All great reforms bring their risks. The risk attached to this reform is that we may shortly be faced with a class domination just as selfish and just as narrow as the class domination of the 18th and the earlier part of the 19th century, only with the relative position of the different classes reversed. I sometimes find myself marvelling at the short-sightedness of members of the Labour and the Liberal parties who themselves belong by birth, by education, by their occupational status and interests to the middle and upper classes, and yet persistently ignore that possibility. I deny altogether that it is a remote and imaginary possibility. I believe it is a real danger which is approaching day by day nearer and nearer.
There is a great deal of pretence and humbug in the atmosphere of to-day. That applies most to realities which are really knocking their shins and staring them in the face every hour. Just because snobbishness of the more obvious kind is out of fashion, because we neither talk nor think about the lower classes or about our inferiors, we pretend that class differences have ceased to exist. They are just as real as ever they were. They may have ceased to exist vertically, but they still exist horizontally. A bricklayer is as good as a stockbroker, but a bricklayer is not the same thing as a stockbroker, and I believe it would be true to say that a Conservative bricklayer has far more in common with a Labour bricklayer than a Conservative bricklayer has with a stockbroker who belongs to the same party as himself. Hon. Members opposite applaud that, but do they realise what it practically implies with regard to this question of university representation? Do they realise that their very cheers are an acknowledgment of the fact that we have a dictatorship of the proletariat and that they want more and more that the dictatorship should become not only potential, as it is at present, but actual by replacing the past domination of the upper and middle classes by the complete
domination, as far as political power is concerned, of their own class?
I know there are Members who think this is an imaginary danger, because, though they belong to what is sometimes insultingly called the intelligentsia, they have found it easier to get returned to Parliament for industrial constituencies. Are they sure it is always going to be so? Are they sure that it arises from conditions which are static or whether it is not one of those instances that all students of political conditions must have observed of the extremely slow time lag in political reactions? A newly enfranchised class is always naturally timid and uncertain of itself. It likes to cling on to the shoulders of the more expedient classes; it likes to select its representatives from among those classes. As it feels its feet and becomes more confident, not unnaturally it seeks to be represented by persons who live the same life, have the same standards, read the same books, play the same games and enjoy the same jokes. When the middle and upper classes were in complete domination, did they choose representatives of the working classes? Is there a single instance when they did so? How, then, can those who themselves belong to the middle and upper classes be certain that we may not be faced in the future with a genuine, purely working-class Parliament? Would they maintain that that is going to be a Parliament which will truly and genuinely represent the whole nation? Do they think it fair and reasonable that, because they are in a minority, because the people at the top, the supervisory people, must always be few in comparison with the routine jobs, those classes should be deprived of all representation, or that they should have no right to choose their own representatives belonging to their own class? Even as it is at present, the fact that the representatives of the intelligentsia are chosen by constituencies the vast majority of whom belong to the weekly wage earning class, does not make for sincerity and straightforwardness in political life.
It means, in effect, that most political candidates have to talk with two voices. They cannot confess to the motives which animate them or express the thoughts which are really in their own minds. It is inevitably so, because they are trying
to pretend equality with those with whom they do not feel equality. I do not mean equality in the sense that their constituents are as good as they are, but they are not the same as themselves and they cannot represent them in the same sense as those of their own class would do. I may seem to be putting up rather heavy artillery in a Clause which makes so small a change as this Clause, which sweeps away plural voting, but so long as we have only a small bulwark against a very great and real danger we had better stick to that bulwark until we can get something better. I believe the time is coming when we shall have to revise our Parliamentary system in a much more drastic manner than even the passing or the doing away with this Clause will do. We may have to see that Parliament shall become more truly representative of all classes, of all sections, of all modes of thought and all points of view than it can be on a flat geographical basis.
May I make one point that I have never heard made in all these discussions. The disadvantages of the flat geographical basis have been greatly intensified by the housing legislation of the last few years. The reason is that, so long as houses were put up by private landowners, there was no danger that the private landowner would put up houses in a particular constituency in such a way as to strengthen the Conservative, the Liberal or the Labour party, but now that the great majority of houses are being put up by local authorities, that is what is happening. There is an acute controversy in the Liverpool City Council over a proposed housing scheme which would have the effect of transferring a very large block of working-class voters, belonging mainly to a particular religion, into a constituency which hitherto has been almost entirely Conservative, and the pros and cons of that housing policy are being quite openly discussed as a sort of political gerrymandering. That is bad for the housing policy and bad for the representative system. I do not say what is the final way out. It may be by a reformed House of Lords. I hope not, because we should have a clash between two systems. We should have a House of Commons elected on a flat geographical basis and a House of Lords elected on some quite different basis, and it would be merely a pull
between the two. The remedy may lie in a system of Proportional Representation and, if that could be properly guarded, I am not sure that that is not the best way. Or it may lie in an alteration of the basis of Parliament, which would be placed on some system of functional representation.
5.0 p.m.
May I give one reason for specially deploring the doing away with plural voting in the case of universities. It will have a serious disadvantage. It has always been my dream since I thought of becoming a university representative myself that we should be able to cut away this vital connection between party politics and university representation. Over and over again in my electoral contests I put forward the view—and I find it attracts more warm applause from all the audiences I address than any other views I put before them—that it is altogether wrong that university representatives should be elected upon grounds of party politics. I use the argument that they should use their votes in their local constituencies and that through the exercise of that vote they could give expression to their party political opinions, and keep their university vote for the purpose for which it was intended of expressing an independent and detached point of view. It will be very much harder to use arguments of that sort when university voters have no choice between the two. There will be more temptation to log roll. If you are in a geographical constituency where the Conservative candidate is in danger, it may be said, "You must use your local vote," and, if you are in a constituency where your vote is not going to make any difference, "You must stick to your university vote." It will be a grave disadvantage if this Clause is passed. It will make it much more difficult to separate the principle of university representation from the principle of party politics. For that, and for all the other reasons which I have given, I deplore that this Clause is to be added to the Bill.

Mr. McSHANE: I think the House will agree that we have had a most interesting and informative speech from the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). She has brought reality into a Debate which, with great respect to the speakers who
had already spoken, seemed to have been largely academic. The previous speakers spoke in favour of a point of view which could only exist in an ideal state. The hon. Lady in her reference to the fact that this country was divided upon a class basis, that this country had a great proletariat and that this country has an employing class, brought reality into the situation, and I propose to deal with that point later on.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was arguing on behalf of the business man's point of view, the employer's point of view. He argued that, if he lived in one constituency and worked in another, surely, since in a sense—I hope that I am interpreting the right hon. Gentleman correctly—the two interests were different, he ought to be allowed to represent those two interests. Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that principle also to the working-man who works in one district and lives in another? If he would do so, my retort would be that it has not been done up to the present, at any rate, although in the case of the business man and the employer it was done in 1918; but perhaps that was a point of view which was overlooked at that time, and, no doubt, quite naturally.
The hon. Gentleman who asked us to reject the Clause in what all will agree was a most delightful and epigrammatic speech quoted from Mills to the effect that we ought not to abolish the plural vote until education generally has been very considerably raised. Following upon that quotation, he took up the argument on behalf of the intelligent man. The intelligent man is not necessarily the educated man. I have known intelligent men. I have known intelligent boys and girls pass intelligence tests which I have 6et, and, with many members of my profession I have come to look upon those intelligence tests as excellent indications as to whether a particular boy or girl might become a first-class burglar or forger. Usually, the boy or girl who is gifted with an abnormal amount of cunning can get through an intelligence test, but no one will suggest that such intelligence and cunning ought to be condoned as being education.
The arguments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) in claiming
for the business man special privileges in respect of voting were interesting to me, particularly after having sat here for hours listening to the Debate on export credits. During that Debate I listened to hon. Members, not merely hon. Members on this side of the House but on the other side of the House, above and below the Gangway, in their great general condemnation of the utter ineptitude and inefficiency of the business men of this country. Having for a whole night inveighed against them on another occasion, we are now being asked to confer upon them the privilege of a second vote as against the position of the working man. The hon. Member for Lancaster also said that this House should be the mirror of the nation. I am afraid that if that contention were examined ho would not repeat it with the same enthusiasm as he did at the beginning, because our nation is made up of a very varied and complex number of people. We have in this House to-day the business men. We have in it, the working men who work either with their hands or with their heads. But there are other people in it. If this House is to be the mirror of the nation, I can see us having—I am not certain whether it has not already been said to have had them in 1918—the profiteering class represented. It is not for me to make that suggestion now. We might also, since it has been represented as the mirror of the nation, have the burglar class represented too. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have—the Chancellor of the Exchequer!"] I would only ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to claim too much credit. We also might have, if it were to be the mirror of the nation, murderers represented. If they were here the guillotine might be put into much more frequent use than it is at the present moment.
I might make an assertion here to-day that the working-class, the class of whom the hon. Lady spoke and whom she called the proletariat, who are not necessarily wage earners, but, many of them, salary earners, many of whom are in the professions—that the proletarian class, who, because they are the proletarian class, are a great advantage to the State; and that, in the face of the wealth of the profiteer and business man, and because they are without property and wealth, they are at a grave disadvantage. Those
of us who have had experience in factories, businesses and offices know that we cannot possibly get our people to express themselves even as they would like to express themselves, and that wealth has a power to-day, in a State like ours, divided as it is on class issues, already out of all proportion to those who possess the wealth. That is the point to which I said I would refer.
It is precisely because our society is a class society, because it has a property and an owning class, that I want to see the working-class ultimately win their emancipation by owning their own homes and their own land. When they own their own land, and when this community is a community which is master in its own house, we can begin to discuss the ideal scheme of representation of all the various interests that go to make up the arts, crafts and all the professions. I believe that when that time comes Parliament will be much richer in its knowledge and experiences, and its sum total contribution to the legislation of the country will be infinitely more beneficial than it is at the present time. As long as you have society based upon a class struggle—I need not emphasise that fact in face of the attacks upon the working-class which are taking place all over the country to-day—and as long as the masses of the nation are dispossessed of property and privileges, there can only be one solution, and that is, that they shall demand common equality with the employer and business men before the ballot box.

Sir GERALD HURST: Some of the first principles which have been debated this afternoon are not really, in my submission, at issue upon the Amendment which is now before the House. All parties seem to be agreed that what we are to aim at under our present system of representation is the best possible representation of each local area. It is absolutely impossible to get the best possible representations of each area unless there is in that area opportunity for the expression of all types of opinion, all types of experience, and all sorts of interests. So long as we have those great central divisions of our great cities it is really impossible to say that their opinions, their experiences, and their interests are properly and adequately represented if the business
men, on whose ability and enterprise the well-being of the whole of those areas depend, are excluded from any share in the representation. There is in all the great towns of England a central area analogous to the City of London in the Metropolis. Nobody can say that the opinions, the experiences, and the interests of those central areas are adequately represented in the votes cast by caretakers and charwomen, small shopkeepers, and the small knots of working-class residential areas which happen to be within the ambit of those central areas. You are, in fact, destroying the distinctive character of those historic sites in our great towns if you destroy what is left of the business vote. Even now, owing to the great growth of limited liability companies, a great many of the leading business men in those areas are not represented, and it is all the more important to preserve the votes of those who are still carrying on business by themselves.
If you really wish to see the mirror of which we have heard so much at work, may it be the mirror which reflects the true heart, the true intelligence and the true experiences of those particular constituencies throughout all the urban districts of England. You will be smashing the mirror if you exclude the power of those persons to vote. It cannot be now said, "Let them vote there and give up their votes in the residential areas." This Bill does not provide for that, because it destroys the business vote altogether. It must be borne in mind that the same people who play the biggest part in the towns also play the biggest part in framing opinions where they live. If we judge this matter on the democratic principle of representation, the Amendment ought to command the support of all who want to see true representation, that is, a true reflection of what is thought in the areas which return Members to Parliament.
The true test of political machinery is, however, not the extent to which it is in harmony with the ideas of democracy, but does it or does it not make for efficiency? From the point of view of all classes of the community it becomes more and more important that business interests should be represented in the Council of the Nation. All the great
questions which bear upon the well-being of the people are business questions. Less and less importance attaches to the purely political questions which interested the Victorians and the politicians of the 19th century, and more and more importance attaches to fiscal questions, tariff questions, economic questions, all of which are bound up with business. This matter is not determined by the mere counting of heads. For 12 years I have represented one of the divisions of Manchester. People say to me "What does Manchester think of monetary questions?" My constituency is a purely working-class residential area, and my correspondence from 1st January to 31st December is not concerned so much with what one might call the big political issues, but deals with the questions which interest working-class people, such as unemployment benefit, pensions, unemployment and housing. There is never any question on the really great issues with which Parliament has to deal. If that is the case in a Manchester division, Manchester being a great centre of industrial interests, it is of the very greatest importance that every effort should be made, in the midst of a world which is so beset with personal and private interests and concerns, and it becomes all the more vital, to give practical effect to the views, the opinions and the experience of men who are accustomed to deal with the larger issues with which Parliament is concerned. The only way in which those interests find expression so far as regards the vote is through the business vote at Parliamentary elections.
I should like to put one point with regard to the university vote which has not been made. We can take it as assumed to-day that university representation is worth preserving. That was the decision of the Committee of this House. It is worth preserving, in the opinion of the majority of the House, because of the special value, educational, scientific and otherwise, which accompanies university education, and also because of the distinctive character of the Members of Parliament returned by university constituencies. Therefore, we have to argue the question of plural voting on the footing that university representation is to be maintained. If
it is to be maintained, is it not very important that the largest possible number of university graduates should vote at university elections? The effect of the Amendment moved by the Home Secretary is to attenuate university constituencies by depriving university graduates, who elect to vote where they live, of their vote for the university. It does not follow that the graduates who are to be deprived of their university vote in that way are the least representative university graduates or that they are the less likely to record their votes for capable representatives of the university.
By diminishing the number of university constituents we shall be lessening the power, responsibility and weight of university Members of Parliament. Once we have accepted the principle of university representation it becomes all important that the right and the duty to vote at university elections should belong to all who enjoy the honour of being a university graduate. I cannot understand anyone who wishes to preserve university representation, and has voted for it, voting now to diminish in some cases by one-half and in other two-thirds the number of university votes. University representation has always appealed to the more enlightened Liberals. The Sovereign who introduced university representation was that celebrated Scottish Liberal, James I. Mr. Gladstone was for many years Member of Parliament for Oxford University.

Mr. EDE: What did he say when he was thrown out there?

Sir G. HURST: I hope that the Liberal Members will remember what Mr. Gladstone said in 1865. He said, of the universities:
For 800 or 1,000 years they have been intimately associated with everything which concerns the highest interests of the country.
Morley, another distinguished Oxford Liberal, places that statement at the head of one of the chapters in his "Life of Gladstone." The House having accepted the principle of university representation is under an obligation to make that representation real. We shall make it unreal by diminishing the number of university votes by one-half.

Brigadier - General Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER: I cannot allow the present
attempt to introduce party politics at the expense of the business organisations of this country to pass without a word of protest. I am not an ambitious politician, but I represent the City of Glasgow, which is second only to the City of London in industry, trade and importance. Under this Bill Glasgow ought not to be treated differently from London. I entered this House with the qualification of having been brought up in the hard school of trade and industry, believing that some special knowledge of commerce might be of service to the House, but I have long since been disillusioned. It is unfortunate that this House does not attract any great number of Members possessing the best business, commercial and financial brains of the country. That is unfortunate from many points of view, because commercial and financial questions relating to the conduct of national business are not less important but a great deal more important than the commercial questions affecting any individual industry, however large. Before this country can expect to return to prosperity in industry and can expect its unemployment to be considerably reduced it will be necessary to enlist to a larger extent, both inside and outside this House, the best commercial brains which exist in the country. This political wangle is doing nothing else than attempting to discourage what we ought to encourage. As far back as April, 1927, on the views which I had formed of Government methods and principles in this House, I criticised, constructively I hope, the financial proposals of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Conservative Government on the extravagant—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I do not see the connection between that and the Clause before the House. The Clause that we are discussing is whether there should be one or more votes.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I am sorry if I have transgressed my limits. I am dealing with this matter from the commercial point of view. However, I shall obey your Ruling and endeavour to state my point otherwise. It is in the interests of the House and in the interests of the welfare of the nation to encourage as far as possible all the business elements of
the country. I believe that large industries can assist and ought to assist in the programme that is ahead of us. At the present time, the limited companies have no representation. Those limited companies, operating on a very large scale, are not permitted to make a choice of their Parliamentary representative in the districts where they operate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see what connection that argument has with the Clause before the House. The Clause lays it down that an elector shall not vote in more than one constituency.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I again have to apologise if I have gone beyond the limits of order. I will content myself by saying that it is unreasonable that obstacles should be put in the way of business interests, of business men who are the brains and assets of this country, and who ought to be encouraged to take a greater interest in the conduct of the affairs of the country. It is regrettable from the commercial and financial point of view that these interests should be discouraged by the taking away of votes which they exercise at the present time.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: The hon. Member who has just spoken has emphasised our main contention that in this matter personal knowledge should always command attention. This Clause is another step in the long process of the reduction of our forms of government to the dead level of the universal suffrage. The issues before us both upon the matters upon which we can agree and the matters upon which we cannot agree were very clearly put by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane). With his description of the object of government one must easily agree, namely, that it is to obtain equal justice for all in the community, whether of class or of individuals, and in an eloquent passage at the conclusion of his speech he indicated his opinion that the best means of furthering the interests of all and obtaining equal justice for all is through the ballot box. That is where I am moved to express disagreement.
How long is the country to be led upon this wild goose chase after good government and effective democracy through the instruments of universal suffrage and representative government? How long is it going to be before the country wakes
up to the fact that by the elimination of all differences and the reduction of our methods to that of universal suffrage we are neither furthering the object of good government nor the ends of democracy itself? This process has been in progress for over 100 years, and during all that-time the greatest political talents in this country have been engaged in ceaseless combats for the acceptance of the process, and step by step forces, which on the whole must be recognised to be forces on the right side, have won the struggle in favour of the extension of the suffrage. We have got nearer and nearer to the dead level of universal suffrage without any forms of difference.
At each step in this process we have always been deluded with the belief that just ahead of us there lies that perfect form of democracy which will secure the liberties of the people and the good government of the country. At the end of it all, now that we are getting nearer to the dead level of universal suffrage, is it not time that we pulled ourselves together, shall I say woke up, and asked ourselves whether we are any nearer the attainment of liberty and good government than we were at the beginning of the process? I believe that we are no nearer now than we were 100 years ago when the process began. Indeed, I believe that in some ways we are further away, that liberty is less secure in the country than it was 100 years ago and that the government of the country is worse now than it was when this process started.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I paid careful attention to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Sir W. Alexander) was speaking, and I have a feeling that the right hon. Member who is now addressing the House, with much more experience and much more adroitly, is stepping a little beyond the question as to whether it is to be one or two.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The opinion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is one which I share. I was at that moment looking through the terms of the Clause. A general discussion upon the merits or demerits of democracy may be relevant upon the Third Reading of the Bill, or upon the Second Reading, but it does not appear to me to be relevant to
this proposed new Clause. This Clause restricts the discussion to whether or not a person should vote in one or more constituencies. That is the sum and substance of the Clause which is before the House at the moment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I hope you will permit me to address myself to the point of Order. The Clause now before the House is one which will have the effect of removing a difference in the present system of voting, and the system which will become one of universal suffrage, one adult, one vote. I conceive it to be relevant to argue on this occasion that any step in the direction of universal adult suffrage is a disadvantage, and in order to demonstrate that I submit that it is relevant to argue that it is a disadvantage to move in the direction of universal suffrage. If that is not so I suggest with all humility that it is really impossible to argue the fundamental merits of the Clause now before the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The point of Order raised by the right hon. Member appears to me not really to appreciate the substance of this Clause. The question of universal suffrage does not arise under this Clause. As a matter of fact, this Clause is restrictive, it does not extend. It simply lays it down, if it becomes law, that no person shall vote in more than one constituency at a General Election. It does not raise the question of universal adult suffrage.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having considered my contention, and, of course, I shall bow to your Ruling. May I be allowed to put the argument I was advancing in somewhat too general a form on a more particular footing? The business of governing this country is rapidly becoming one of increasing complexity, and the particular form of complexity to which I think it is necessary to call attention on a Debate of this nature is the increasing international complexity of government. A hundred years ago it was possible to govern this country more or less as a unit alone in the world. Nowadays it is impossible, because it is so much bound up by close economic ties with the economic structure of the rest of the world. That being so, does not this consequence follow? I invite hon. Members opposite to agree with
this very obvious proposition, that in these days of great economic complexity you have to consider this country so far as many of the measures we have to consider here are concerned, as a single great business, possessing in itself a unity which is different from the unity of its parts and also possessing close relations with the economic world outside.
We have to consider the country as a single great business. I also invite their assent to this further proposition, that in this great business while there are many different factors involved there are two principal outstanding factors, that is the factor of the Labour point of view—the wage earners—and the factor of the management or executive point of view. That is, of course, beyond dispute; and although this third point may be more controversial yet I think it is one upon which it is possible to obtain agreement, that as between these two big factors, looking upon the country as a business concern—the labour factor and the management or executive factor—owing to the historical accident of the way in which things have come to be, the knowledge and experience necessary to arrive at wise decisions is on the whole not in the same hands, but in different hands. I am prepared to grant that the knowledge and experience of labour questions is in the hands of hon. Members opposite, although there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would question that proposition, but I claim in return that knowledge and experience as regards the management side is largely in the hands of those who are generally referred to as business men. If that is so, if these two contributions are necessary to right decisions on important questions, does it not follow that the right guide as to the opinion which should be given in all matters of legislation is not necessarily to be based on a purely arithmetical calculation.
To get at any reasonable form of government you must be prepared for the present to wait for the knowledge and experience which is held on the whole by the executive and management side. I am prepared to say that at the present time, in order to get the country through its difficulties, we should give a preponderance of opinion in the council of the nation to the management or executive
side, whatever might be done at other times, but I know that it is impossible to put that contention forward in a modern state. If you want reasonable decisions on the biggest questions that come up for decision in the legislature I do not think you should go further than to give equal influence to labour considerations on the one side and to management and executive considerations on the other, and then have an arbitrator to decide between the two. That is a council of perfection, but it is asking far less when we make a stand to save, for the benefit of good government in the country and the true liberties of the people, the very small extra weight that is still given to all that body of special knowledge and experience so necessary to right decisions on modern economic questions which is contained in the business community. The Clause before the House is a retrograde step. It is a long step backward in view of these wider considerations which will have to be discussed and settled by this House on another occasion. As regards the more practical considerations this is a step in the direction of bad government.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I oppose this new Clause on somewhat different grounds to those put forward by some of my hon. Friends, who have opposed it on the ground that it is not necessary or an advance in the direction of democracy. I oppose it because it is an advance in the direction of democracy. I am not a Hitlerite or a Fascist or a member of the New party, but I believe that the terms democracy and efficiency are incapable of being joined together.

Mr. McSHANE: They are none the worse for that.

Mr. BEAUMONT: You have ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that a discussion on the merits or demerits of democracy is out of order, otherwise I should have been delighted to have taken up that point. I submit that this new Clause is the last step in the folly of equality; that reactionary Victorian theory, which never had any benefit or substance, which never had any sanctions at all, which never existed and which was only invented as a will-o'-the-wisp by reactionary mid-Victorian Radicals as a bait to dangle in front of the ignorant. And very successfully; the donkey followed the bait.

Mr. McSHANE: What about Mr. Baldwin and the flappers' vote?

Mr. BEAUMONT: I think you would rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, such a subject out of order. I say, quite frankly, that if I had been in the House at that time I should have opposed it.

Mr. COVE: Send for Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Let me return to the definite point of the Amendment, from which I was led away by hon. Gentlemen opposite. This new Clause lays it down that it does not matter what a man's qualifications may be. He may be subversive, he may be of alien race or diseased in body or mind, yet his voice in the councils of the State is to be just as good as that of anyone else. I say unashamedly that I believe in plural voting. I make a present of this statement to hon. Members opposite—I would not select as the best possible either business men or university graduates, though they are the only people who have the plural vote under the existing law, but I would strongly oppose taking that plural vote from them. The trouble is, not that the country is organised on a class basis, but that the class lines have got twisted round in the wrong direction. Instead of there being, as there should be, classes of leaders and led, those competent to lead and those who have not the time or the intellect to go into the very difficult questions of government, we have got out of the straight and narrow groove into the groove of merely money and non-money. I deplore that fact. I believe plural voting to be a good thing. If the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) can move a manuscript Amendment to include amongst the plural voters the workers in the place where they work, I should support him.

Mr. McSHANE: It was not I who suggested that, but the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain).

Mr. BEAUMONT: With deference, I disagree with the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said that he believed in business men having votes both where they lived and where they worked. The hon. Member for Walsall asked my right hon. Friend
whether he would support a similar privilege for the workers. I do not know what my right hon. Friend would do, but I would support such a proposal. The greatest curse on this country to-day is the theory of equality, which always drags down from the best to the worst. One right hon. Gentleman from the Liberal benches said that the balance should be weighted in favour of the weakest and the poorest. That is to draw down the efficient, the useful, the leaders, to the level of the worst and the most incompetent. Whatever historical parallel there may be, whatever lesson there is to be gained from history, that has always been for the evil of the State. What we have to consider, it has been said, is whether this proposal is in the interest of democracy. I dissent from that view. What we have to consider is whether the proposal is in the interests of the State. Anything that is going to produce more of a dead level of equality, more weighting of the good down to the level of the bad, putting the more forcible brakes on those best able to lead, as I believe the abolition of plural voting will do, is not in the interests of the State. For these reasons, I oppose the new Clause.

Mr. DENMAN: On these old subjects it is difficult to discover new arguments. I have listened to a great many arguments that were familiar many years ago. But there are two new features to-day. The first is the strictly modern and fashionable scepticism about democracy, which has been the motive of several speeches from hon. Members opposite. I am not going to quarrel with that, because it would not be in order for me to pursue the subject. It is, however, a significant fact that that is the case nowadays, and I admit that in some measure I share the feeling. Democracy is clearly an experiment, and we have to go through a great variety of experiments before we get the final form. But what we have to consider to-day is the existing state of our voting system, and a very limited problem in regard to that.
Throughout the Debate there has been a good deal of confusion between two different things—the question whether there should be a special representation in this House by specified experience and knowledge and interest, or, what is really the subject of this new Clause,
whether there should be additional votes given to certain favoured or selected individuals. Those are two entirely separate problems. The first, that of special representation, we have already decided by the Government's acceptance of a decision that the universities are to have representation. That is an accepted fact.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 3, he will see that we there come to the question whether there should be registration for business premises or not.

Mr. DENMAN: The case of the City of London was decided in Committee.

Lord E. PERCY: Clause 3 abolishes plural voting, but makes a special exception with regard to representation of the City of London. If Clause 3 were not passed, the business vote would remain precisely as it is at the moment.

Mr. DENMAN: Special representation—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think hon. Members are now anticipating. They must confine themselves to the issue immediately before the House.

Mr. DENMAN: I must apologise for having been lured away. There have been really three, or at the most four, specific arguments against this new Clause. The first is that plural voting is the last vestige of added authority for selected voters, and although he did not approve of the precise form in which it is now embodied, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) said he would keep that vestige for its historical interest.

Mr. BEAUMONT: It has a practical value.

Mr. DENMAN: The second was that business men should take an interest in the places in which their money is made. Those who have seen the process in action, those who on a General Election polling day have seen motors in great abundance pour into the centre of the City which they very seldom frequent at other times, who have seen them bring not only the business men who make their money there, but their wives, will say that it is a kind of interest that does
not impress the ordinary elector with the sense that it is particularly just or valuable. There was the further point, that if this Clause were passed universities would suffer from a shortage of voters, because for some unfortunate reason graduates might be lured to be more interested in their localities than in their universities. I sympathise in some measure with that hardship, and there is a very simple remedy, which is that no graduate should be allowed to vote in the area in which he resides. That would effectively cure that particular evil.
Then there was the last and rather sensational danger with which many of us on this side were threatened, namely, that if we accepted the Clause we who are not manual workers would be in danger of suffering the worst horrors of working-class domination. I confess that that argument leaves me cold. It is in contrast with a previous statement, that experience has shown that the British voter is a singularly gentle and mild and even conservative creature, and certainly not one who would be likely to inflict any very great terrors on any normally-minded citizen. But I will not say more about that. Assuming that there is a danger that is threatened, what is most likely to promote and aggravate that danger? Surely it is a sense that the present system is unjust and unfair and weighted against the manual worker. The whole constitution of this country is in details weighted against the manual workers. They are profoundly conscious of it, profoundly conscious that the Second Chamber is a continual weight on progressive legislation. It is an obvious weight on the fortunes of their own quite legitimate political desires. You may not agree that it is so, but the feeling is there in their minds.
What is this other weight? It is that you give particular and privileged persons more than one vote. It may not affect very many constituencies, but it all gives the impression that Parliament—both the Upper House and this House—is weighted, in so far as there are weights at all, against the working classes. No one can deny the existence of that fact and impression. I should have thought that the most elementary political wisdom would have persuaded hon. Members that that kind of weight
were better removed, because it is the sort of weight that takes from them sympathy with policies which they sometimes produce and which otherwise might be carried. While that weight is there, those of us who are not manual workers will feel less secure than we can feel if all these weights were abolished, if we can simply regard our political system as giving equal powers to the various elements in our life, giving a fair chance and fair play to all classes.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: Some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken in this Debate have displayed a tendency to embark upon a general discussion of democracy which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have quite properly curtailed, and, as you have curtailed it, I do not propose to incur the rebuke which you would doubtless address to me if I followed their example. But I would like to make one general observation. There is probably no country in the world in which the philosophy of representative institutions has received such adequate and effective expression as this country, and that expression is not based merely on numbers. It has been said of the British Constitution that it "simply growed," like Topsy, and one of the great merits of this House is that it has been regarded as the mirror of the nation. A mirror may be a very unpleasant thing to face on occasions, but it can fairly be claimed that this House is the mirror of the nation in that it represents the facts and the situation in the country.
The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) was raising a very old cry and one which has lost all force in present circumstances, when he talked about the weight being against the working classes of this country. If there is one country in the world where the working class, as well as every other class—not more than other classes but not less—gets a fair chance of having its point of view expressed and heard and debated and declared, it is this country. To talk nowadays about the weight being against the working classes is, if I may say so with respect, a ridiculous proposition. This House of Commons has to be the mirror, not merely of numbers but of the opinions of the nation, and
I rise merely in order to apply that general proposition to a particular case, namely, the case of university representation.
I do not wish to express the point of view which I have in mind merely because I happen myself to be a university representative, but I think it only fair that that point of view should be expressed upon the subject before we part with it. I say, quite candidly, that the universities are asking for special treatment. I do not wish for a moment to disguise that fact; but I think that the universities have good reason for asking for special treatment. Quite frankly and honestly, I fail to understand the excitement raised in some quarters in connection with the proposal which was incorporated in the Bill, as it was introduced, for the abolition of university representation. I should have thought that such a proposal was entirely inconsistent with the trend of modern thought and the needs of the present time.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that we cannot discuss the abolition of the university vote, except in so far as it is affected by the Clause now before the House.

Mr. EVANS: I was saying that we asked for special treatment and I was about to emphasise the argument for special treatment by this remark—that among all the social services which exist in the country, I cannot imagine one which is of more genuine and enduring importance to the country than that classed under the term "education." It is because I think it a social service of enduring and vital importance to the country that I say that the universities are entitled to ask for special representation. I am not going to make any claim on the basis of the quality of those who have represented the universities in the past or who represent them to-day. Reference has been made to "the more enlightened Liberals." I resent that term very much, because all Liberals are enlightened. On whatever else we may disagree with each other we are all agreed upon that point. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier from this side would agree, even if I dissent from his speech that he and I are both enlightened and where all are enlightened, it is no use introducing
comparative terms. Although I do not claim anything for university representation on the ground of the distinction of past or present representatives of the universities, I believe that that social service is entitled to a special voice in the councils of the nation and that if this House deprives the universities of their special privileges, it will be administering a rebuff to a large number of people who are desirous of seeing educational facilities increased. There are enthusiastic men and women up and down the country who spend hours and days and weeks of their lives in trying to extend facilities for education for all the children of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "The School Attendance Bill!"] It is no use introducing that subject now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is introducing the truth.

Mr. EVANS: The truth is this, that the enthusiasm which is being displayed to-day throughout the country by men and women of all classes and conditions in the cause of education is immense, and is greater than it has been in the past. Anything done to give those people a rebuke or a rebuff—as I think the abolition of university representation would be—could only be regarded as a very sad thing for the country. Education is one of the social services which ought to be encouraged and I think that since the House in Committee approved of the continuance of the existence of university franchise, we should be doing the right thing in following up that decision. But there are two ways of doing the right thing. You can do it graciously or you can do it grudgingly. The House in Committee decided that university constituencies shall be continued. Let the House now follow up that decision by doing the thing graciously and they will add not merely to the prestige of the constituencies which they preserve, but they will also do something to enrich the educational life of the country.

Mr. EDE: When I was a Liberal I understood that a fundamental part of the Liberal party's policy was the doctrine of "one man, one vote." Whether we were more or less enlightened in those days, on that point at least we were agreed. However much we differed on
other things we were united in believing in the principle which used to be put by the present leader of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans), that a man had one soul and had only a right to one vote. That principle is, still, I believe, held by a majority of the Liberal party and it is held unanimously by Members on this side of the House. The hon. Member pleaded for special consideration for a special social service. He will agree that I might have personal reasons for suggesting that if any social service is to be selected for special consideration it ought to be education. But honestly I cannot see why you should select the social service of education and neglect say, that of nursing. If a person is to get a special vote because he has qualified at a university, why should not a young woman who has qualified in a hospital as a nurse be allowed to exercise a second vote in respect of some constituency framed to include her, in addition to having a vote where she resides.
The principle which we are asked to continue is an entirely fancy principle, and it works inequitably. I represent a borough which is just outside the Parliamentary constituency of Houghton-le-Spring, and, owing to the fact that the municipal borough was extended since the passing of the Representation of the People Act of 1918, part of the municipal borough of South Shields is within the county Parliamentary Division of Houghton-le-Spring. As an effect of the principle which we are now asked to continue, if a person has business premises in South Shields and resides in the borough of South Shields, his second vote will depend upon whether he resides in that part of the borough which is within the Parliamentary Division of South Shields, or in that part of the borough which is within the county Parliamentary Division. The only reason given by the defenders of this principle for continuing it, is that it exists. It is a sound Conservative principle that whatever is, is right, but that carries with it the corollary that in history everything that ever was was right, no matter how much people may he disposed to condemn the injustices of the past.
The hon. Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) brought in the sacred name of Gladstone in defence of this principle,
and quoted what Mr. Gladstone said in 1847 when he was asking the university electors of Oxford to return him to Parliament. I would remind the hon. Member that Mr. Gladstone, like most of us, took his pitcher once too often to the well and that there came an occasion when Oxford and he parted company. The hon. Member quoted Morley's "Life of Gladstone" and I thank him for his courtesy in showing me the exact quotation upon which he relied. When he was quoting it, another passage in the same work sprang to my mind. In the first place, I would say that, dealing with the Election of 1865, Lord Morley makes this remark which is germane to the issues before us:
The educated residents were for the Chancellor of the Exchequer"—
that is Mr. Gladstone—
as they had always been, and he had both Liberals and High Churchmen on his side, but one feature was novel, the power to send votes by post.
It was those people who were quite apart from the main current of life in the university, and who resided outside, who separated Gladstone from the representation of the university and it is those people whom we are now asked to continue in the privileged position of having two votes. They were, apparently, first introduced into the life of the university at that election. The hon. Member told us what Gladstone said when he was wooing Oxford but did not tell us what he said when Oxford had rejected his addresses. These are the magniloquent words of Lord Morley which sprang to my mind when the hon. Member was speaking:
In the fine hall which stands upon a site made historic by militant Free Traders he used the memorable phrase 'At last, by friends,' he began 'I am come among you, and I am come among you unmuzzled.' The audience quickly realised the whole strength of the phrase and so did the people of the country when it reached them.
Surely the hon. Member's argument involves an emphatic condemnation of the crippling effect of the representation of "the home of lost causes," when one follows it to the conclusion which I have now reached. I want to deal with the phrase on which the hon. and learned Member relied:
There is not a feature or a point of the national character which has made England great among the nations of the world that is not strongly developed and plainly traceable in our universities. For 800 or 1,000 years they have been intimately associated with everything that has concerned the highest interests of the country.
As the son of another university, I would agree with that, but I say that equally it is true of the agricultural labourers of the country. They have for more than 1,000 years been bound up with the highest interests of the country. If we are to have special representation because people confer benefits, we cannot limit it to these two classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite cheer that vociferously every time it is uttered, but I have not heard, apart from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), a single constructive suggestion as to how they would embody their cheers in this Bill or in any other Bill.

Mr. BEAUMONT: It would be out of order.

Mr. EDE: I specifically exempted the hon. Member, who was prepared to carry the thing to its logical conclusion. We have been told that the business community are the essential part of the modem city. I believe, myself, that the essential man for the modern city is the navvy. Without the work of the navvy and a system of underground sewerage, you could not have the great modern cities. During the War I was transferred from the East Surreys into the Royal Engineers, and up till that time I had imagined that navvying was an unimportant and unskilled occupation. It was my misfortune, on the first day that I was taken out to learn trench digging, to be placed side by side in the ranks with a man who, when we sought to know his civilian occupation, told us he was a buck navvy—I do not know what a doe navvy is—and I learned in the next 20 minutes that navvying, the essential service for the great modern city, is a thing that requires a very highly specialised training. You cannot select the business man and the university graduate alone. Any system that has to be logical will have to cancel itself out by giving a second vote to every person who is doing useful, reasonable work for the community.
I want to reinforce an argument that has been used many times on this side. I do not believe that a university education, or any form of education, or a business training will of itself make a man a better citizen than a man who has been brought up to deal with the more practical things of life. I believe that if you are to give a second vote to the man who sits in the principal chair in an office in the City, you ought to give a second vote to his typist. She not only puts the letters right, but my typist writes a good many of my letters for me, and the most successful ones at that, and I think the same is true of a good many business men. We are being asked here to preserve two interests that in the main vote Tory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We all admit it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are giving yourself away!" No, I am not. We have never imagined that they vote Labour. We have frankly said that we desire to remove from the Tory party this unfair advantage, and if there is any benefit in being honest, I hope that we have been honest all along in regard to this point. I hold that we want more and more to insist that the task of governing this country is not the task of specialist classes; it is the task and the duty of every individual citizen.

Mr. BEAUMONT indicated dissent.

Mr. EDE: I do not know from which of those two, the task or the duty, the hon. Member for Aylesbury dissents.

Mr. BEAUMONT: From both.

Mr. EDE: Then I am afraid that between us and him there is so great a gulf fixed that we have reached the stage of dogma, where nothing that we can say will convert him, and I fear that nothing that he can say will convert us, but we shall both go on gaily holding our own opinions.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I thank the hon. Member for the compliment.

Mr. EDE: I hold that the continuation of this double franchise cuts at the basis which enables us to say to every individual citizen, "You have an equal task and an equal duty"; and because I desire to see that emphasised in the future, I hope that the Clause proposed by my right hon. Friend will be added to the Bill.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in spite of his efforts to base his support of the Clause first of all upon logic and then upon the absence of any privileges for nurses or for navvies, let the cat out of the bag in the closing sentences of his observations, when he declared that the real object of his remarks was in the interest of prohibiting the crime of voting Tory. It has been apparent on this side that from start to finish the real objection of hon. Members opposite to the university franchise being exercised in addition to the ordinary franchise which members of universities may have was that they had been guilty of the atrocious crime heretofore of voting in the majority on behalf of the party that is opposed to hon. Members opposite. That admission, of course, is an expression of the conviction of hon. Members opposite that by no process that could be contemplated in the immediate future are intellect and intelligence ever going to be converted to Socialism, because whatever hon. Members may succeed in doing in deceiving themselves, they must allow me to say that if the universities were at this moment voting 100 per cent. Socialism, they would certainly not discover that logic is any objection to allowing the universities to continue to have the vote. We have not found hon. Members opposite so loyal to their theories that they would be prepared to disfranchise constituencies of which they will be in sore need at the next election, but just because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, these university members dare to vote Tory, they are the objects of the bitterness of hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) said that his objection to the university vote was that the interests of the working classes were not properly represented at the present time or, as he put it, that the working classes have the weights very much against them at the present time. The hon. Member must live in some state of splendid isolation and detachment in those northern counties to which I think he belongs, if he really thinks that the working classes in this country have not an adequate or a proper power in the settlement of the affairs of this nation, because the fact that the working classes in the electorate are in a vast majority, so far as numbers
are concerned, is patent to everybody, and surely hon. Members opposite cannot pretend that, because the working classes, who are in a vast majority so far as numbers are concerned, dare to vote Conservative, that is any evidence that the weights are against them in the management of the affairs of this country.
Hon. Members opposite really do not allow themselves to look at this question with unprejudiced vision. Merely because the working classes, as everybody knows, vote in a very large number of cases in favour of the Conservative party is no reason at all for saying that there is any weighting of the scales against the working classes. The working classes to-day, as I have said, are in an overwhelming majority in the electorate, and if they chose, and if hon. Members opposite could only succeed in persuading them to do so, they might secure the Government of this country for the extremist form of Communism or Socialism that any country in the world enjoys, and the Super-tax payers and the so-called leisured classes would not be able to raise a finger to prevent the working classes from settling finally, by revolution or any other means, the constitution of this country. It really is not doing credit to the intelligence of hon. Members opposite, let alone of the House of Commons, to suggest that the working classes at this time of day have not a fair and equal opportunity for doing what they like with the political government of this country.
Let us therefore dispose of that argument, which is unworthy of the hon. Member and his experience of political affairs. I think I am right in saying that he occupied a position as a Member of this House for a considerable period before the War, and he must be conscious of the fact that there has been a great change in the last 20 years. Probably this country allows the working classes, as I understand he denotes the great majority of the people of this country, to have more power in the government of this country than any nation in the world, even including the pet object of hon. Members opposite, the country of Russia. The working classes are supreme, but you really cannot settle this question of the university vote by pretending that the working classes do not enjoy every single privilege to which an elector can ever be entitled.
Then the question is as to whether strict logic really requires the university vote to be abolished, because if the Clause of the right hon. Gentleman is carried, it will reduce university representation to such a state that probably it will never survive the attack which the new Clause proposes to make upon it. I venture to think that you cannot settle these questions—this must have been said so many times before that I apologise for saying it again—by the application of logic. Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told us the other day that logic could not determine the whole of the proposals in the Finance Bill for the imposition of a land tax. I recognise that there are different views on both sides of the House on the question of the way in which we ought to treat landmarks in the history of our country. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that because a thing is old, it must necessarily be bad. On this side we venture to think that because a thing is old, there is a prima facie case for retaining it until somebody has produced an argument which shows that it is bad.
Have hon. Members opposite any reason at all for depriving university representation of the advantage of the position which it has at present, except the strict ground of logic? Is there a single other ground upon which they would get rid of university representation, apart from this claptrap about the representation of the working-classes? Of course, if you are going to apply logic, it may be said that the university representation ought to be abolished altogether, or that it ought to be cut down as is done by the proposed new Clause, but that fairly represents the two views on both sides of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would in many directions reduce life to one dead level of monotony. They would abolish everything that did not conform to some conventional design of geometric squares and triangles. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were to be left to rule our country by logic, we should indeed be in a position of which, I venture to think even hon. Gentlemen opposite would be ashamed.
The question is whether this university representation cannot be retained with advantage, not only to the country, but to the universities. Does it not add some dignity to the universities that they shall
have a special position—I grant it is a special position—in the government of this country? Do hon. Members opposite think so little of the importance of impressing upon the great teeming population of this country the value of the cultivation of intellect and education that they cannot afford to let the universities have some special privilege which will show that they do occupy a special position in this country? Why should they not be held up as a great and an important feature in the government of this country? Of course, the only answer to it is that to which we come back in reality, that so far the universities, generally speaking, have presumed to vote for the Conservative party. I am told that in the modern universities there are indications that they may vote for the opposite parties. The hon. Member for South Shields speaks about the unfair advantage of one class. Suppose the universities voted in equal parts for the Socialist party and the Conservative party. I expect that he would admit then that there was no unfair advantage of any kind. Why should he speak of the unfair advantage of a class when both classes are getting an equal advantage or an equal benefit?

Mr. EDE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now confusing classes with parties.

Sir T. INSKIP: I am not confusing classes and parties at all. I am dealing with the class to which the hon. Member referred when he spoke of the unfair advantage of a class. What was the class concerned? He cannot suggest that there is only one class that goes to the universities. A hundred years ago it may have been that only the landed or propertied classes went to the universities, but now every class goes, so that the hon. Gentleman was not thinking of the class of the community, which is measured by wealth or birth. Then, when he speaks of the unfair advantage of a class, as he does not mean a class of the population measured by wealth or birth, presumably he means a class represented by the university voter, and he asks, why should this class have an unfair advantage? That seems to show that what he is thinking of is an unfair advantage based upon the fact that they are voting Conservative.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: indicated dissent.

Sir T. INSKIP: The Solicitor-General shakes his head. I am dealing with the argument of the hon. Member for South Shields when he said that he objects to the university vote because it gives an unfair advantage to a class, and I am pointing out that he must have meant by "class" the university voters.

Mr. EDE: My recollection is that I used the phrase in connection with the illustration which I took of the university graduate, who was stated by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans) to be concerned with the social service of education, and of the nurse who is concerned with the social service of nursing.

Sir T. INSKIP: That is exactly what I am pointing out to the hon. Member, that when he alludes to a class, he is talking about the university voter as contrasted, for instance, with the nurse or the navvy. Then he said that the class of university voter has an unfair advantage. Suppose the university voters voted in equal parts for all political parties, what is the unfair advantage which that class has?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The second vote.

Sir T. INSKIP: The Solicitor-General says that they would have an unfair advantage because they have a second vote. It is rather difficult to see how they get an unfair advantage if they vote in equal parts for all political parties.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My interruptions meant that the graduates would have two votes as against all other voters in the country. Other people, such as myself, would have only one vote.

Sir T. INSKIP: The Solicitor-General says it is an unfair advantage to have two votes. It may be an advantage, but he begs the question when he says that it is an unfair advantage. I want to ask him why it is an unfair advantage for a man to have a second vote. Take his case, for instance. He stands for a constituency which has something like 47,000 voters. I stand for a constituency which has 57,000; other Members represent constituencies with 25,000 or 30,000
voters, and some constituencies have as many as 75,000. Is it an unfair advantage that the man who is one out of 35,000 should exercise proportionately a greater power than the man who is one out of 75,000? Of course he has an advantage, but the question is, is it an unfair advantage? The answer to it is that if, in settling the constitution of a great democracy, you confine yourself to logic, you undertake an impossible task, and you probably produce ridiculous consequences. You probably also eliminate a great many advantages in the political system which do not depend upon logic for their attractiveness or usefulness. That is really the point of view from which hon. Members opposite ought to approach this question of the university vote.
Let us get rid of the idea of the supposed disadvantage to the working class, which I have tried to show is not in question here. Let us get rid of any idea of logic. [Laughter.] I am not the least ashamed to say that, because any student of our constitution, and indeed of the proposals of the Socialist party, could point to a hundred cases in which logic is not the rule; and anybody who attempted, as hon. Members will admit if they are honest, to rule his life by logic, would make a hell of his home, as they would make a hell of this House. So I say, if you get rid of some supposed disadvantage to the working class, and get rid of the idea that you can settle this question by logic, it comes down to the question whether or not you confer a great benefit upon education, as well as preserve an attractive feature of our constitution, by allowing the universities still to retain some advantage. I will concede that point to the Solicitor-General. On this side of the House we stoutly contest the suggestion that, because it is an advantage, it is necessarily an unfair advantage. The Prime Minister holds an advantage over all other politicians because he gets in the public Press such greater prominence to his utterances. The heresies which he utters from time to time receive an advertisement which my sounder and more sensible convictions cannot command. He enjoys a considerable advantage over me. I do not suggest that it is an unfair advantage; and when the Socialist party
succeed in reducing life to a dead level of monotony, I suppose that the logic of equality upon which every Socialist will insist, will require an equal length in the public newspapers to be given to everybody who makes a political speech. Otherwise, where is your Socialism?
Hon. Members opposite will do credit to themselves and to their party if they will try to face this question as honestly as, I am sure, some of them are doing, and let them consider whether or not it may be an advantage both to the community and to the cause of education if this privilege, this advantage, is retained unimpaired by the university voters. The hon. Member for South Shields referred to "One man, one vote." Of course, it is a device for preventing the operation of the hon. Member's intelligence that he should try to govern his fate by catch words and slogans of that sort. If hon. Members will deliver themselves from the tyranny of ideas couched in phrases, I venture to think that they will come to the conclusion with us on this side of the House that the university franchise, on the whole, does credit to the country which recognises that education and intelligence should still have an advantage, even in a Socialist community.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: I do not propose to touch on the question of university representation, but on that of the plural vote. Here I find myself in a good deal of agreement with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and in what I have to say I hope to be able to show him that he and I will be able to meet on common ground. What are the arguments which are used for the proposal to abolish the plural vote? They are summed up in catch phrases such as "One man, one vote," "One vote, one value," "Democratic control of the people," and so on. They are based on the assumption that, in arranging for the representation of the people, everybody should be regarded as having an equal value in regard to the judgement he exercises, quite independent of his intelligence, education, or responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said on this question that we are not counting heads, but the brains behind the heads. That is the purest nonsense. Anybody who has had anything to do
with the instruction of youth or undergraduates, knows perfectly well that if there be one thing that is certain, it is that there is no equality of brain and that you practically never find two people of equal intelligence or equal gifts. Given two men, you are certain to find inequality. This case for equality is given away completely, when you cannot carry it out to its logical conclusion.
To illustrate what I mean, I am compelled to take three extreme cases. I will refer first to the unfortunate individual who is in a lunatic asylum, who, of course, has no vote; to criminals in gaol, who also have no vote; and, thirdly, to the age limit for voters. Dealing first with the person who is in a lunatic asylum, is it not a matter of absolute certainty that the line which divides the person who can be certified to be of unsound mind to such a degree as to be put into an asylum from the person who is just on the other side of that line is an exceedingly difficult line to draw? In fact, it cannot be done. Everybody knows that there are people in lunatic asylums whose judgment on matters of politics and many other subjects is extraordinarily sound. These poor creatures are confined in the asylum because they are either a danger to themselves or to the community, and although they may have a sound judgment in political matters we refuse them the right to vote; but we give the vote to the village idiot.

Mr. EDE: We give it to senior wranglers.

Mr. WILSON: I was not one myself. My point is that we draw a line of intelligence there. Where should we stop drawing that line? Should we not go further? Why should we give the village idiot, who may be just on the border of being certified, a vote, and withhold it from the man who has been certified? Take the case of the criminal class. One criminal happens to be in gaol at the time of an election and is not allowed to vote, but another criminal, who may also have been in gaol, but is outside at the moment of the election, is allowed to vote. There is no equality there. We do not get, and we cannot get, equality. Then, take the question of age. To be entitled to vote a person must be
21 years of age or upwards. Why 21? Why not 20 or 19? Where are we going to draw the line? Is it not a matter of common experience that a young man under 21 may have a much sounder judgment, greater ability and more common sense than a young man who happens to be over 21? I shall be told, I suppose, that there must be a dividing line somewhere, and that the present one works fairly well, but I maintain that by these limitations hon. Members opposite give away the whole of their case when they are talking about equality of votes, "One man one vote," and "One vote one value." There is no equality, and it is no good pretending there is. In any scheme of electoral reform we ought to proceed in the opposite direction, instead of trying to get a dead level of equality. Instead of having this dead level of "One vote one value" and so on we ought to move beyond it. I would go with the hon. Member for South Shields in what he said about the class of women to whom he referred. I would give them an additional vote. I do not say that we can ever get a perfect system, but we could get a fairly reasonable system, based on something to do with intelligence, education and responsibility. We shall never get a perfect system, and it is not for me to suggest one, but I feel that we are going away from a reasonable system and towards a system which is worse, which is illogical and unsound.
As regards the question of complete democratic control, I think that was exhaustively and finally dealt with by the Noble Lord the senior Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) in the earlier stages of this Bill. He showed conclusively, beyond any possibility of doubt or argument, that we shall never by any such system as we have in this country get what hon. Members opposite are pleased to call "complete democratic control." I advise hon. Members who have forgotten his speech or who did not hear it, to read it, and to give it their serious attention. They will be convinced that, in the matter of securing complete democratic control, there is nothing to be gained by any system of this kind.
What is the truth about the whole matter? The hon. Member for South
Shields has given it away. He said quite clearly that he and his friends felt that the present voting system was in favour of the party that sits on these benches, and that they were going to change the system in order to adjust that inequality or that injustice. That is a barefaced thing to admit in this House—that legislation is brought in which is admittedly party legislation. I do not know whether it can be held that it is wrong to do so, but I should imagine that it is—to introduce and support a Bill simply because it is going to injure this side and help the other side.
There is another point. In the past we have had the slogan "No taxation without representation.' We are moving now towards a more dangerous position; we are getting representation without either taxation or responsibility. We are getting representation by people who do nothing for themselves or for the country. We are educating a certain part of the community in the idea that they have no need to work, that it is not necessary for them to show any initiative or resource, or to attempt to do anything for the good of the community, but that they may sit at home in idleness and that their wants will be supplied, and at the same time they can exercise their votes. I do not say we have got to that position yet, but I say that we are educating a certain portion of the community towards that idea, and it is a very dangerous idea. We are also encouraging them to talk in the most ridiculous way about depending upon the State. What on earth is the State? They seem to consider that the State is some amorphous body with an inexhaustible purse from which inexhaustible supplies of money for their necessities can be drawn. The State consists of their fellow men and women, and the persons from whom they are drawing the necessities for which, through misfortune, they have to come to the State, have to provide those necessities by their hard work and their brains. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker will deal with me if I am out of order.
I was arguing that the present tendency of electoral reform in giving representation without taxation is a great danger to the community. I will finish
my remarks by urging hon. Members to consider the case of my native country, Australia. Things have moved a little more rapidly there. It is only a question of degree. The resources and the reserves of that country are not anything like the resources and reserves of this great country. We are living on our reserves in that we are encouraging people to vote who have not any responsibility, and who exercise their vote in order to get more and more. I say there is a danger in that position—not that we have reached it yet. The danger has been reached in Australia, and if we look at the state of affairs there we shall see one of the inevitable results that follows reforms of this nature carried to their logical conclusion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a question to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about an Amendment which is on the Paper stating that though a person may have his or her name on the electoral roll in more than one constituency, he or she may not vote in more than one constituency. Assuming that that Amendment becomes law, I want to know what is to prevent such a person from voting in the two constituencies. In order to secure the conviction of a person who contravenes the law in that way, that person much be caught red-handed at the time of voting. It would not be sufficient to say that his votes had been recorded, because someone else may have recorded the vote on his behalf. He must be caught red-handed to secure a conviction. That Amendment will not be workable in practice. We have had in Glasgow what was obviously illegal voting. There are 15 seats in Glasgow. A man with a business vote may vote in respect of his residence in one part of the city and vote for his business in another constituency. His wife is only allowed to vote for one particular constituency, but her name may appear on the roll in two, and what, in fact, does happen is that frequently the wife votes in both places, and nothing can be done about it. If people want to vote in that way so long as we allow their names to remain on the register it will be ineffective to try to stop them. I want to ask the Under-Secretary what steps will be taken to see that a person who appears on the roll in two places does not vote more than once.
7.0 p.m.
I welcome back to the House the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in the late Conservative Government for this reason if for no other, that he adds to the Conservative party a power in which I have felt they have been lacking during his absence. He has a certain Scottish capacity for arguing an illogical case in a fairly logical fashion. I would say in reply to him that nobody argues that one can get complete logic. Even if this Amendment were carried, all sorts of illogical things would be going on. There would be the case of a man who has a vote in Glasgow and has a vote 30 miles away, and he can motor from one place to another to vote. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to-day was beside the point. The Government are not proposing to abolish the university vote. The Government have granted the university vote, and what we have heard to-day shows the fallacy of conceding to the Conservatives what they ask. Having conceded them the university vote they are now asking for the dual vote. It shows the fallacy of making any concessions to them. The late Attorney-General said there were no grounds for it in logic, but that it was based upon historical considerations. We are not now proposing, I am sorry to say, to take away the university vote. What he is asking is that the university voter should have this university vote and, in addition, a vote for his residence and possibly a vote for his business as well. I disagree with the whole attitude that universities have added to the culture of this great country, or that they have added anything great and noble. I come from a family that, except possibly another and myself, are all associated with universities and have university degrees. I have a brother a doctor, but he has no right to have more votes than any other member of the family. He is a doctor because his mother devoted tremendous energy and sacrifice to it. If anyone should have extra votes, she should have. Hon. Members opposite say that he should have a university vote and, because he lives in one part of Glasgow, he should have a vote there, another vote for the district where he has an office, and a fourth vote for his panel practice outside Glasgow, so that altogether he has four votes against the one vote of a brother who is an engineer and
attended a technical college. Just because he is the youngest of the family he is to have four times the votes of the rest of the family. Just because he is younger than the rest and had a self-sacrificing mother, he is to have four times the votes of a man with a different type of mother.
I see all manner of illogicalities in this proposal and, although I am afraid that this country is very illogical, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has got to defend this proposition. We are revising the voting power of this country, and propose that certain people should no longer have a right to more than one vote. What the right hon. Gentleman has got to prove is that that section of the community has added culture to this country, and has made it better. He has not attempted to prove that. If he had, there might have been some case for giving them an extra vote, but even that would bring him up against this position. He might argue that certain members of universities may have added culture to this country, or that some of them, even leaders of his own party like Lord Shaftesbury, have added to the humanitarianism of this country, but he must argue then that, not as individuals, but as a class they are entitled to it. This is class privilege. He must argue, not that certain members of universities have done it, but that as a class they have done it. They as a class have not contributed any more in ennoblement, culture and capacity than any other class. Indeed, if anything, they have added the worst forms of reaction.
I listened to the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. Evans) arguing that they have devoted their interests towards education. I have never seen, in the nine years I have been in this House, a university Member interested in education in the broadest sense. This seems to be an impertinent demand. The universities in this country are perhaps the only educational institutions with which the Government have no right to interfere. They are self-contained and, although the Government give them grants of money, they have no right to interfere in the spending of them. Yet they, who say that the manual or industrial worker has no right to interfere in their universities, claim special rights to interfere with other people's affairs. It
may be said that we are actuated by class motives. But what about the business people and university people who vote Tory? That is why we intend to take this vote away. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member sat in the last House and almost every one of his colleagues supported a Motion to deprive the recipients of Poor Law relief of their vote in local elections. Nine-tenths of the Conservative party urged that that should be done. It was not numbers that stopped it, but it was one or two men belonging to their own party who killed it, including the hon. Member now sitting as an independent Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman). All the Conservative party speakers would have deprived Poor Law recipients of the right to vote at local elections.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Member says that all our speakers voted for it, but the fact is that we did not do it. It shows the intelligence and the great care we in our party took in these matters.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It was not because of intelligence; it was because they would not do it just before a General Election, as that would have meant that they were finished at the General Election. There has got to be a case made out here for dual voting, that they, as a class have contributed more than any other section of the community and have contributed some great and ennobling ideas. It may be urged that they have greater responsibilities, but, in my view, their responsibilities are in many respects far less than those of some other sections of the community. Therefore, they are not entitled to any second vote, and, the university franchise should be entirely abolished. I am blaming the Government in this respect. The Government made their attempt to deal with it. I am sorry it has not been abolished. As regards the dual vote, it is sheer impertinence on the part of the universities, who have been given the right to vote, now to come along with this. They have the impertinence to think that they are superior, that the education they have got from a university gives them a superior status and a superior right. They think we are the inferior portion of the community, and that they are entitled to better wages and hours. Whenever university people enter into the
arena of competition, they think they are entitled by nature to payment for holidays and to remuneration on a higher scale than other men. I only hope that the Labour movement here, looking over past years when a great section of the universities has been constantly used as the weapon and means to depress the standards of the working class and not to raise them, will not only see that the plural vote is abolished, but that the special privilege of the universities is also abolished.

Mr. BUTLER: The only reply I shall make to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is that, on rising he said he was only going to ask a short question of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and this led us immediately to the soap-box, an attitude in which I admire the hon. Member, for there is no brain in this House—[Interruption.] The hon. Member devoted his speech to hurling insults at the universities with which I happen to be closely associated, and in which I take considerable pride. I was going to pay a compliment to the hon. Member, when I was interrupted, by saying that there is no brain in the House so receptive of new ideas when he rises to his feet. We are always glad to see him rise, because we know there is no more ready speaker in an extempore way. I am sorry if I have disappointed the House in not hurling insults back at the hon. Member, I was only repaying him for the compliment he paid to the ex-Attorney-General. He asked why the youngest member of a family of four, who happened to have had the opportunity of going to the university should get four times as much voting power as other members of the family. That reminds me particularly of the whole philosophy that is behind the Alternative Vote, which is that the baby, the candidate who comes in fourth in the election, is going to be given four times in the hon. Member's own language, twice in mine, the value in votes of the others.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member's remarks are addressed to me, but they have no reference to me. I was one of those who voted against the Alternative Vote.

Mr. BUTLER: I am not addressing my remarks to the hon. Member personally,
because we appreciate his sincerity on that point. That is a typical example of the arguments of hon. Members opposite, that the youngest with a university degree is superior to the others, and that is a principle which is at the very bottom of the reason why we have this Bill in the House this evening. I want to take up another point, which may have been a slip of the tongue in the speech of the hon. Member, when he said that it was a concession on the part of the Government to leave the universities their vote. Has it ever been regarded as a concession in this House when, in a direct and free vote of the House, the Government are defeated and are obliged to stick by the free vote of the House? This is the first time in my short Parliametnary career that I have ever know that regarded as a concession. I would only ask him, when he reviews his extempore speech to-morrow, to consider whether that point might not need correction?
I turn to the argument of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who asked why a business man should have two votes for his property qualifications, when the navvy who digs the sewer, which is the most important work in taking away what is most unpleasant in the city, docs not get two votes? That is an important point and has been a feature of our Debates this afternoon. That navvy has got representation in a double form by being enabled, in the first place, to vote for his trade union and then having that vocational representation which is in this House in such a striking degree.

Mr. EDE: Does not the business man also frequently get a vote a second time when some candidate is supported by some trade federation of which he is a member?

Mr. BUTLER: It is the first time I have heard of that principle being represented in this House, but it is certainly not the first time I have heard a trade union member being represented in a vocational way in the House. It is one of the striking features in this House and of the party opposite. I would like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), who asked why a business man who lives in one constituency and has works in another should have two votes, while a
workman who works in one constituency and lives in another cannot have two votes? My reply is that the working man gets his chance by voting for the trade union candidate, and thereby gets additional representation in this House. A good many other points have been repeated, but I will not go over the same ground again.
With regard to the case of the navvy working on a sewer, is it not likely that the man who designed the sewer is a more important person than the navvy The navvy would not be able to work at all but for the work done by a competent engineer. Probably the engineer was educated at one of those universities with which we are now dealing. Therefore, is it not fair to say that, if the navvy is entitled to double representation for vocational and territorial reasons, the engineer who designs the sewers should be allowed a double representation through the university and through the locality in which he lives?
An hon. Member opposite has told us that the boast of the Conservative party is that "what is, is right." If I had time I could take the House through a review of English history showing the present position of the statement that "what is, is right." I propose to do it shortly in order to enlighten the hon. Member opposite. We believe that the whole basis of representation in this House is on an historical basis, that is, on a mixture of vocational and the territorial. The locality was perhaps the first stage of representation, and it was succeeded very rapidly by the vocational basis under the Tudors—

Sir CHARLES OMAN: The Stuarts!

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, the Stuarts introduced representation for the commercial element. I thank my hon. Friend for his correction. It is quite right that the Stuarts produced the university vote, but I think the Tudors introduced commercial representation. Gradually those monarchs found that it was necessary to balance the aristocratic element which was becoming too strong for the commercial element. To-day, we find it necessary to balance the working-class element, which is becoming too strong, by restoring the aristocratic element to its former position. I know that argument can easily he misconstrued, but I
can sincerely say that to-day the working classes receive all the representation they need in comparison with the other classes, and, if we wish to preserve the same balance as was preserved in English history I think it is only reasonable that we should retain those features of vocational representation which have made our representative institutions what they are.
I do not think that we have come to the time for deciding what shall be the future of this Parliament. The other night, while burning the midnight oil, I looked up the Debates of 1906, 25 years ago, and the result was that I found very little novelty in any of the proposals which the Government are now putting forward. They are not dealing with the future of our Parliament in the way they ought to do. I think there is a general feeling that the vocational element must be represented in our legislature whether it is represented in a bicameral way or not. The Solicitor-General has a great future before him, and, if he desires to take any part in the architecture of our institutions, I ask him to see that the vocational element is balanced. The Government have tackled this matter without vision and have just given us a rehash or crambe repetita instead of legislating for the future. For these reasons, I oppose the new Clause introduced by the Home Secretary.

Sir C. OMAN: As the hour is late I have only a very few remarks to make. I think the conduct of the Government on this question is most astonishing. They have proposed a new Clause which affects a most important part of a most important Bill, but the representatives of the Government have been practically absent from the House and they have said nothing. They have allowed the Debate on the Government side of the House to be carried on by irregular skirmishers, strange allies, and auxiliaries with an inferiority complex, who have been holding forth chiefly about the wrongs of the working man. Into that part of the policy of the Government, I do not intend to go because I know that it is useless to argue
with Caesar, the master of many legions. Though the benches are empty while I speak, he can summon an infinite number of supporters from the Map Room, and the less dry atmosphere of the lower Smoking Room. I only wish to make one definite point. I oppose this new Clause for one fundamental and constitutional reason, and that is because I believe that there should be no taxation without representation. By this new Clause I am going to be restricted to my university vote. My main interest in the world is not my salary as a professor at Oxford, but elsewhere and by this new Clause I am going to be deprived of my power to vote where my interests lie. I am going to be restricted to my university vote, and I think that is absolutely wrong that I should be deprived of my common rights as a citizen with a domicile. Every voter ought to be able to vote in the place where his interests lie, but under this new Clause I lose this right, and that is opposite to all the true principle of representation. We are going to be deprived of our vote in the country if we utilise our university vote.
The hon. Member opposite dragged in Mr. Gladstone. I once had a good deal to do with Mr. Gladstone, whom he declared to have been estranged from Oxford. In fact, when be visited Oxford I was the junior fellow in whose charge he was placed, and I can assure the hon. Member opposite that Mr. Gladstone was in his old age as thorough a university Conservative as ever lived, and so far as his academic views were concerned he was thoroughly imbued with early Victorian ideas. When Mr. Gladstone was a young man and a speaker at the Union—as he told me—there must have been many speakers there who could not have been dressed for £20, but now, he said, they were so untidy that he did not see any boy there who could not have been dressed for £10. He was sad to see it. I give that as an example of the thorough-going Conservatism of his mentality.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 225.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harbord, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, J. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Alpass, J. H.
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Angell, Sir Norman
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palin, John Henry


Arnott, John
Herriotts, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Palmer, E. T.


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Perry, S. F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hoffman, P. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barr, James
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Horrabin, J. F.
Pole, Major D. G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Benson, G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Price, M. P.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Isaacs, George
Pybus, Percy John


Birkett, W. Norman
Jenkins, Sir William
Quibell, D. J. K.


Blindell, James
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Richards, R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bromfield, William
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ritson, J.


Brothers, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kirkwood, D.
Rothschild, J. de


Buchanan, G.
Knight, Holford
Rowson, Guy


Burgess, F. G.
Lang, Gordon
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cameron, A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sanders, W. S.


Cape, Thomas
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sandham, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Sawyer, G. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lawson, John James
Scott, James


Church, Major A. G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scrymgeour, E.


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sexton, Sir James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees, J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, William G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dangar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longden, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edge, Sir William
McElwee, A.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Edmunds, J. E.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Elmley, Viscount
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Sorensen, R.


Foot, Isaac.
McShane, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Freeman, Peter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Manning, E. L.
Strauss, G. R.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Mansfield, W.
Sullivan, J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marcus, M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Marshall, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Glassey, A. E.
Matters, L. W.
Toole, Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Townend, A. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Millar, J. D.
Vaughan, David


Granville, E.
Mills, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Gray, Milner
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Walker, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morley, Ralph
Watkins, F. C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James (Palsley)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph




White, H. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wise, E. F.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Dixey, A. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Albery, Irving James
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Aske, Sir Robert
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Astor, Viscountess
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Connor, T. J.


Atkinson, C.
Ferguson, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fermoy, Lord
O'Neill, Sir H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Captain Osbert


Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beaumont, M. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Purbrick, R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Remer, John R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boyce, Leslie
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ross, Ronald D.


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hammersley, S. S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Simms, Major-General J.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)


Bullock, Captain Malcom
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smithers, Waldron


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerset, Thomas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayimer
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thompson, Luke


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Sir F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Train, J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colman, N. C. D.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Colville, Major D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cowan, D. M.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crockshank, Capt. H. C.
Lymington, Viscount
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Culverwell. C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Withers, Sir John James


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Womersley, W. J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, Edward
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 4, after the word "constituency," to insert the words "by virtue of any qualification."
I need not say that this is an introductory Amendment to a later Amendment which stands in my name—In line 7, to leave out from the word "person" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
who is entitled to be registered in respect of a residence qualification for two or more constituencies shall, on or before the fifteenth day of October in each year, specify in writing the constituency in which he or she desires to vote at any General Election, and a person shall only vote in respect of a residence qualification at any General Election in respect of the constituency so specified as aforesaid.
The effect of these Amendments would be to make the new Sub-section read as follows:
(1) Every person registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency by virtue of any qualification shall, while so registered (and, in the case of a woman, notwithstanding sex or marriage), be entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for that constituency, but a person who is entitled to be registered in respect of a residence qualification for two or more constituencies shall, on or before the fifteenth day of October in each year, specify in writing the constituency in which he or she desires to vote at any General Election, and a person shall only vote in respect of a residence qualification at any General Election in respect of the constituency so specified as aforesaid.
I, for one, believe strongly in the advantages of the business premises vote and of the university vote, and I believe that people who are entitled to be registered in respect of these qualifications should be able to exercise their votes. Under the Bill now, as it has passed through Committee, the university vote and the business premises vote in the City of London are the only votes to which this system can apply, and, therefore, the total number of persons who would be entitled to exercise a second vote, if my Amendment were carried, would be extremely small. I do not know what is the total number of such votes, but it is not very great, and I cannot see that, in accepting this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would really be doing any serious violation to his principle of "One man, one vote," as that principle will henceforth apply to the greater part of the country.
There is one point in the existing law which I desire to remedy by this Amendment and which has always seemed to me to be totally anomalous. Under Subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Act of 1918, a man or woman was entitled to one vote in respect of residence and one vote in respect of another qualification, and they could only use a residential vote and one other vote, whether a university vote or a business premises vote. After all, a certain number of people now have, and will have, three qualifications under the Government's scheme as it at present stands. It might easily be that a man lives in London and has a business vote in the City and also a university qualification, and cases might arise such as that which arose at the last General Election in South Paddington, where an elector residing in the constituency would have absolutely no use for his residential vote because there was no contest; and I feel that, where a man has two qualifications, he ought to be able to choose which of them he desires to use. I have never seen the logic of saying that a person may be registered in respect of three separate qualifications but may only use two, one of which must be a special qualification which in some cases he cannot use owing to the fact that there is no election in that particular constituency. This has always seemed to me to be an indefensible anomaly.
I admit that the provision in the Act of 1918 which gave a vote in respect of other qualifications than residence was purely a compromise, but I wish to preserve the right of double voting in those constituencies where the qualification remains, and to make it perfectly clear that any elector can choose in respect of which qualifications he desires to vote. I fail to see why a man should not vote, say, in the City of London and in the University of Cambridge if he so desires, and I wish to give complete liberty to the voter to choose in what constituency he shall vote. I should not be in order if I went into the general question of plural voting, since that has already been to some extent decided, but I feel that there is a very strong case in these remaining constituencies of the universities and the City of London for allowing people who are registered in those constituencies still to have two votes in addition to their residential vote, and
for allowing them the right to select in respect of which of their qualifications and in which constituencies they will give their votes.

Lord ERSKINE: I beg to second the Amendment.
As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, it would be out of order now to go into the whole question of plural voting, but the object of this Amendment is to allow university voters a second choice. I do not know exactly what would happen if the Bill should pass into law as it stands at present, because the voter who is on a university register, and who has also a residence qualification on some other register, will have to choose which of these qualifications he will exercise, and it may well be that the majority of electors will prefer to vote in the constituencies in which they reside. In that case the result will be that a very small number of people will vote at university elections. After all, what we are asking is not a very big thing. I believe that the total number of votes covered by the Clause only amounts to some 250,000, and this university franchise amounts to very much less than that. The House has decided to retain the university constituencies. I dare say that decision came rather as a shock to the Government. Nevertheless, the House did so decide and the Government have accepted the decision. Having accepted it, what we are asking is that the Government should make it real by retaining those constituencies as a force and as numerous as they are now, in order that the Members whom they return may be backed by a proper and sufficient number of electors.
I do not think any of us can say how many voters would vote at the university and how many in their own constituencies. There might be very few voting for the university constituencies, and that might reduce university representation in many ways to a farce. The House, by deciding to include university representation, obviously did not intend that it should be reduced to a farce, and, therefore, we are asking that those provisions shall be left as they are and that, in the case of the universities and the City of London, a voter may be able to vote in his own constituency as well. I
do not think anyone opposite can object very much to the Amendment. We were told, during the discussion of the original Clause, by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that the real objection they had to the double vote was that so many double voters were Tories. I think I remember Mr. Saklatvala saying, to the amusement of the last House, that the whole cat had now jumped out of the bag. The hon. Member for South Shields certainly let the whole cat out of the bag. I think the Government should take a better view on this small Amendment than they did on the last. It is not a great thing that we are asking. We are merely asking that these university constituencies shall be left as they are, and indeed the House desired that they should be left about a month ago.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Amendment is not quite so harmless as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Noble Lord would have us believe. It might appear at first sight that it merely deals with a matter which has already been discussed for some three and three-quarter hours—plural voting within the ambit of the Bill as it came from the Committee. As a matter of fact, it vastly extends the existing system of plural voting, because it enables a person who has a residence in two different constituencies to vote in respect of each of them. The Amendment, even if it did not suffer from that very great vice, which makes it impossible for us to accept it, so far as it does anything else, only raises again the question which has already been so fully debated as regards the plural vote for business premises and the university. I am sure I should not be acting in accordance with the wishes of the House if I attempted again to go through the arguments which have been put forward. For the reasons I have given, it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am not a lawyer, but I am surprised at the legal decision which the Solicitor-General has given. I notice that there is not a single lawyer in the House who stands by him on the subject. I have no doubt that, being rather young and inexperienced, he has been given the rather unpleasant task in the dinner hour to get up and make a statement on a point of law at a time
when Members of his profession may be largely absent. I do not think he really-believed that this very harmless and innocent Amendment would enable us to have a vote for two residences, because the Bill is governed by earlier Acts. You cannot vote for two residences now, and there is nothing in the Bill that I can see to alter that position.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The new Clause that we are discussing is to be substituted for Section 8 (1) of the principal Act.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But does the principal Act enable you to have a vote for two residences? I do not think it does. I am expressing that as an opinion, and my opinion is probably as accurate as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a very long time, as far as I remember, since we have been able to vote for two different residences. Double representation, as far as two residences are concerned, was taken away very long before 1928, and the 1928 Act does not apply. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to continue his law researches before he answers the point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I try to make it clear to the hon. Member? The position is that Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1918, as amended and re-enacted by Section 4 of the Act of 1928, is the Section which restricted the vote to one residence and to one business qualification or other. That Section of the Act of 1918 is to disappear and there is to be substituted for it a new Clause, and, if this Amendment were accepted, the new Clause as amended would take the place of the Section of the Act and there would be nothing to prevent plural voting except this Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to pursue his study of the matter a little further but I am still not at all certain that he is right. It is merely a matter of legal opinion, and you can always get that on both sides. For practical purposes he has washed out his own argument already.
8.0 p.m.
Let me consider the Amendment from another point of view. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused my hon. and gallant Friend and the Noble Lord of being rather too innocent in this matter.
I do not think they are. I think they made a very frank statement of the position they wish to attain. The House has declared in favour of university seats and the Government have accepted the position. The Government have learnt that the House is right when it votes freely, as it did on that occasion. What we wish to secure by these Amendments is that the university franchise, which is already not very large, shall not be reduced to an absolutely impossible position. We wish to have a steady and growing block of people voting in the universities. Suppose a miner in South Wales has qualified for a vote for a university. Why should he be deprived of the power which he ought to have of voting for a university Member in addition to voting in the constituency in which he resides? Hon. Members opposite know that, when you have education driven into all sections of the community, the people who now vote blindly for them will change their minds. I want to see more of them obtaining this university qualification and I want to see their two votes preserved for them. They ought to be able to take these two parts in the national life. I do not wish to narrow it. The Amendment is thoroughly sound. I believe the Home Secretary himself, if he were only free to decide, would not deal with a matter of this sort in a small and petty way. The Amendment is giving nothing to these people. It merely refrains from taking something from them.

Mr. TINKER: I oppose the Amendment. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment made it clear that they wanted an extension of plural voting to be given to university voters, and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) endeavoured to argue that people ought to be given a chance of giving two votes. He spoke about the Welsh miner.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He is as much entitled as anyone else.

Mr. TINKER: A strong argument was put forward that we ought to have a certain number of people in the House of Commons who come from universities because of their special learning. If a person has a university vote, let him exercise it either in the university or in
the constituency. If he believes that it is more important to have a man from the university than it is to have one from his own constituency, there is nothing to prevent him from giving his single vote where he thinks that it ought to be given. The hon. Member for Torquay apparently desires a person to be allowed to exercise a vote in his constituency and also to exercise another vote at his university. That is directly opposed to what we have already decided. We have just decided against plural voting. The House has taken a decision that in this country in the future it shall be, one man, one vote, and, one woman, one vote, and no more. It would be asking the House to go back upon what it has already decided.

Lord ERSKINE: It is the business vote as well.

Mr. TINKER: Surely hon. Members are not going to go back now that they have given a decision. The Noble Lord said that it was only a small matter, but I can assure him that there is a big principle underlying it. I do not see how the Government could defend themselves if they gave way along the lines suggested by hon. Members opposite. I will be candid upon this matter. In the past, plural votes have always been cast for the Conservatives. I have never liked that, because I think that they have no right to have such a privilege, but that fact has had some influence with me. One would not have been so keen about this matter if the plural vote had been exercised in a manner different from the way in which it has been exercised. We cannot turn back upon what we have done. We are out for one man, one vote, believing that everybody in this country should have equal electoral rights. I hope that the Home Secretary will stand by the original decision.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not intend to take part in the discussion upon this Amendment, and should not have done so were it not for the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). He put what he thought was the case quite clearly, but he ought to see the point of view of the other side as well. The hon. Gentleman said that the House had decided that there should be no plural voting. That is quite true, but the House has also decided—the hon.
Member seems to have forgotten it, and the learned Solicitor-General seems to have forgotten it also—another very important thing. It has decided to discard the views originally put forward by the Government in regard to university representation. In other words, by a free vote, which, I think, should weigh with hon. Members on both sides, the House has decided not to accept the views of the Government on the subject of university representation. Having so decided, the House, in fairness, should accept all the implications that that carries with it. That is the point.
What are the implications which the continuance of the university vote carries? I make a present of this fact to hon. Members opposite. They may use it against us in the course of Debate. It is notorious that men who have had the vote for university candidates have always voted in their own constituencies also, and, perhaps, in some constituencies, have attached more importance to it than in voting for the university candidate. That is a fact which we may accept, but so long as you have the university vote you ought to give the same rights as were possessed before, namely, of voting in the constituency in which they live, and of voting in their university constituency as well. If you do not do that, the result will be that you will largely reduce the number of people who will vote in the university constituency. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that that is an argument for abolishing university constituencies. It may be, but the point is, that the House has decided to continue the university constituencies. Having done so, it is only fair and honest that the House should accept the implications which that decision carries.
It may be that the Amendment of my hon. Friend and of my Noble Friend goes further than they intended, and I say frankly that I am inclined to agree with the Solicitor-General on this point. I think that the particular Amendment gives an extension of facilities for plural voting. Still it is only fair and just that university voters should possess the same rights as they had before because of the fact that the House has decided to continue the principle underlying the vote for university candidates. From that point of
view, it is only a small matter. Personally, I think that if my hon. Friends can be assured that the Government will accept the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 4, after the word "constituency," to insert the words "other than a university constituency,"—we shall not wish to vote on this Amendment. The next Amendment deals with the matter more clearly. It is not right that the

House, having decided on a course of action, should proceed to whittle down the privileges of the university voter which it has decided in other respects to continue.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 242.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[8.9 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fermoy, Lord
Remer, John R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Aske, Sir Robert
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Atkinson, C.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibson. C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Savery, S. S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Simms, Major-General J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Skelton, A. N.


Boyce, Leslie
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerset, Thomas


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Butler, R. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thompson, Luke


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, Sir J. [...]
Thomson, Sir F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tinne, J. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Train, J.


Cowan, D. M.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cranborne, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay).


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Withers, Sir John James


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir George Penny and Captain


England, Colonel A.
Pybus, Percy John
Wallace.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Ramsbotham, H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Blindell, James
Charleton, H. C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Chater, Daniel


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowen, J. W.
Church, Major A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clarke, J. S.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cluse, W. S.


Angell, Sir Norman
Bromfield, William
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Arnott, John
Brothers, M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Ayles, Walter
Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Cove, William G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brown Ernest (Leith)
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Daggar, George


Barr, James
Buchanan, G.
Dallas, George


Batey, Joseph
Burgess, F. G.
Dalton, Hugh


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Benson, G.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cameron, A. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Birkett, W. Norman
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Duncan, Charles


Ede, James Chuter
Leonard, W.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, Fred W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edmunds, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.


Elmley, Viscount
Longden, F.
Sandham, E.


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sawyer, G. F.


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Scott, James


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scrymgeour, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Scurr, John


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sexton, Sir James


Gibbins, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McEntee, V. L.
Sherwood, G. H.


Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Glassey, A. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Shillaker, J. F.


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Shinwell, E.


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Granville, E.
March, S.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gray, Milner
Marcus, M.
Sinkinson, George


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Markham, S. F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Groves, Thomas E.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Millar, J. D.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mills, J. E.
Sorensen, R.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Milner, Major J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell


Harbord, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Strauss, G. R.


Harris, Percy A.
Morley, Ralph
Sullivan, J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sutton, J. E.


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plafstow)


Hayes, John Henry
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.
Tout, W. J.


Hicks, Ernest George
Muggeridge, H. T.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Murnin, Hugh
Vaughan, David


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Viant, S. P.


Hoffman, p. C.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Walkden, A. G.


Hopkin, Daniel
Oldfield, J. R.
Walker, J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wallace, H. W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watkins, F. C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid
Wellock, Wilfred


Jenkins, Sir William
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Perry, S. F.
West, F. R.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, Joseph


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
White, H. G.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kelly, W. T.
Pole, Major D. G.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kirkwood, D.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lang, Gordon
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wise, E. F.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ritson, J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Romeril, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leach, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy
Thurtle

Sir G. HURST: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
Save that an elector for any university constituency may vote for that constituency as well as for one other constituency.
The House has now accepted the general principle of one man one vote. Inasmuch as it has also accepted the principle of university representation, this Amendment is designed to make one exception to the general principle against plural voting, in order to make really
effective the exercise of the principle of University representation. If we are to have, as the House has agreed, University representation, any man would surely wish to make that representation really effective, so that the university Member should represent as large a constituency as possible and reflect the views, opinions and ideas of the largest possible number of University graduates. Unless we make an exception of this character to the general provisions of the Clause it means that we shall only have a handful
of constituents in each of our Universities, because a very large number of university graduates will, naturally, prefer to vote for a candidate in the Division where they live and work, rather than to recall old days and sent a vote by post for a university candidate. Unless we adopt some such Amendment as the one that I have moved the university graduate will not have an opportunity of doing both.
I base the case for the Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, as we are having university representation it should be as effective as possible, and we ought not to ignore the enormous number of university graduates who have long since ceased to have any local connection with their university town but who are loyal Members of that university and reflect in their lives the educational advantages that have accrued to them from being at a university, and who wish to be university voters as well as local voters. Secondly, as was said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), unless we have plural voting in the case of university graduates the election of university Members of Parliament will very largely gravitate into the hands of residents. It is not a fair test to judge a university simply by its residents. The whole scheme of the universities to special representation has a very much wider character than that. Their claim is that all over the country and all over the world the deserts of the university are borne out by the careers and work of men and women who graduated there, and it would be a misfortune if the duty of voting for university Members was confined to university residents. That is the inevitable tendency if we are not going to allow plural voting in this exceptional case.
It may be said that that would offend the principle of one man one vote. University representation itself is illogical and anomalous. By having university representation we admit the anomaly, but we should make it worse and more illogical if after having opened the door for university graduates to vote for university members we insist on limiting those who are to have the vote, to a very small number. Therefore, the argument of limiting the vote on the ground of logic seems not to hold good, in view of the fact that this is an exception made
in the general law of the country, not on behalf of some canon of logic but simply on the ground of national expediency and necessity, as proved by the vote of the majority of this House when Sitting in Committee. The principle of this Amendment was thrashed out on a previous Amendment, and one hopes that since then a ray of greater tolerance and greater knowledge has penetrated into the minds of those who voted against us. In that hope I move the Amendment.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I should like to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that having got the university franchise we are greedy and ungrateful to ask that we should have the double vote. I do not feel quite happy that someone has not said something kind to the Home Secretary in regard to this matter. I appreciate that he has, quite rightly, adopted and taken to himself the decision of the House on the last occasion, although it was open to the Government to have re-opened the matter. Personally, I wish to thank him and the Government for the attitude they are taking on behalf of the universities. I do not want to say that half a loaf is better than no bread, and I do not like to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I do thoroughly appreciate the attitude of the Government and I am very grateful to them for it. That being so, the question is, what special grounds can be shown for the university graduate being treated separately from other voters in respect of the plural vote?
I think there is something that I can put forward that has not been touched upon to-day. I would refer to what happened when the whole question of the franchise was gone into 12 or 13 years ago. On that occasion there was a very large increase in the electorate. The universities were democratised and the university seats were increased and reorganised. It was decided as part of the general scheme of the extension of the franchise that that should take place, and it has been acted upon. It seems to me that it is not very wise or prudent after such a very little time absolutely to throw such arrangement aside. If it was right then to extend the university franchise in that way, with the double vote, surely
it would be wise to give it a fair trial, to allow it to go on for a bit and to see how it will work out.
It should not be altered in the interests of any particular political party. The constitution of the universities is changing; the class of persons who are going there has altered very much and will be reflected in the political views of their representatives. That, however, should not be considered. A question like this ought not to be made a party matter. Twelve years is a short time in a development of this kind and if after a proper interval of time it is found to be unfair to any particular class, I should be the first to say that it should be altered, but I do not think a sufficient trial has been given to this development to warrant us in altering it just at the moment. There is another aspect which should be considered. We are not creating a new constituency; it is already there, and that being so, does it really hurt anyone to let as many people vote there as possible. Surely, if you want to get a decision of the universities it is as well to make the electorate as wide as possible. It would be unwise to limit it simply and solely to those who want to vote in that particular place and to exercise that particular franchise.
I do not think it will have the effect which some hon. Members suspect. The numbers on the register are increasing and I believe university graduates are keen on the university franchise. I shall be astonished if we do not get at any rate from the older universities and Scottish universities exceedingly creditable polls. I shall be disappointed if they are mere negligible quantities and I should not have put so much energy into this question if I thought that was going to be the case. But assuming that only one vote is allowed, that there is no plural voting in connection with university seats, there will be an awful lot of intrigues in order to get voters in a constituency which is a safe seat to exercise their vote at the university. It would be a pity if university representation became the subject of intrigue and wire pulling. I do not suppose anything one can say will alter the views of hon. Members opposite. I have put the position in a
very reasonable way, and would like again to thank the Home Secretary for his attitude on this matter.

Mr. MARCH: Very unreasonable to talk about intriguing.

Sir J. WITHERS: My point is that parties would intrigue among themselves, not against each other. I do not say there is anything improper in that, but it is not very dignified.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I acknowledge thankfully the reference of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) to the attitude of the Government on the subject of university representation after the Committee's decision, but that decision does not diminish my regret at the reverse which the Government suffered on that subject. Indeed, it is a decision which only intensifies our desire, as far as this Bill will enable us, to lessen the privileges which still remain to university voters. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) has not concealed his desire to maintain the privileges of the university voter and in the frankest way has put in a plea for the plural voter. That is his case. One has only to read the Amendment to arouse one's hostility to it. It is that a university voter may vote for that constituency as well as for any other constituency. The hon. and learned Member wishes to make the electoral power of the university voter as effective as possible. In my judgment he is seeking to multiply inequalities, which it is our purpose to reduce as far as we can, and to wipe them out altogether. The Amendment would allow a university elector to vote for his university constituency and for one other constituency; it would allow university electors to exercise two votes in respect of different constituencies. A recital of the privileges which this Amendment would confer makes a sufficient case against it, and the Government certainly cannot accept it.

Lord E. PERCY: Surely the Home Secretary does not ask the House to vote against the Amendment on the ground that it will enable a voter to vote for two university constituencies in the same election? He can hardly mean that. The Amendment, as drafted, might
make that possible, but the serious possibility of it occurring is hardly one which a Cabinet Minister should think it worth while to put forward as a reason for its rejection.

Mr. CLYNES: That is its effect.

Lord E. PERCY: That might be its effect, unintentionally, as it is drafted, but does the Home Secretary really think that there are a sufficient number of people who are registered graduate voters at two universities to make that a sufficient ground for rejecting the Amendment? That argument is not worth a reply. I want to ask hon. Members opposite to consider this question of the university vote, upon which I have not spoken until now, from the point of view of the dignity of this House, the good name of this country, and a reasonable efficiency in the working of our constitution. We have decided that the university vote shall remain. The Home Secretary says that this only adds to his desire to make it as ineffective as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) was, I am afraid, rather premature in his congratulations. What the Home Secretary really has done is that he has refrained from putting down a Motion to reverse the decision of the Committee, but he hopes by a side wind to render that decision nugatory; and this is the kind of action which is regarded as enhancing the prestige of Parliament in the country!

Mr. CLYNES: May I draw the Noble Lord's attention to the fact that in the original Bill it was proposed to disfranchise university electors and to prevent them exercising two votes. That is our attitude at this moment; we have not changed our mind.

Lord E. PERCY: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind. The Committee decided against him; why does he not ask the House to reject the opinion of the Committee? He has frankly told us that he prefers the alternative of trying, under the Clause that he is moving, to make the decision of the Committee as nugatory as possible. That is a peculiarly unworthy way to treat the decision of the Committee. I should have far more respect for the Government and the party behind them if they had frankly tried to reverse the decision
of the Committee. But I ask hon. Members to consider this question of university representation in view of the fact that the Committee has made this decision and the House is not being asked to reverse it. We have been asked by the Government to say that university constituencies shall continue to exist, and in view of that fact I ask hon. Members to consider what is the way in which those constituencies ought to be treated in the interests of the nation, not in the interests of the constituency or the graduates.

Mr. TINKER: By recording their votes in their constituencies.

Lord E. PERCY: I ask the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to consider what I am going to say before hastening to reply. He and other hon. Members opposite proceed on the principle of "one man, one vote." When one uses those four words, one can always be certain of getting an absolutely automatic reaction from hon. Members opposite. It is one of the best instances of pure reflex action I have ever seen outside a laboratary. But I ask hon. Members to consider the proposition in a slightly different form—that one man should have only one representative for all purposes. Does that sound equally reasonable? Is there any hon. Member present who thinks that he represents all his constituents equally well, for the purposes of all the varieties of business that come before this House? We all know that as a matter of fact many of our constituents who vote for us would be better represented, in certain classes of business that come before this House, by someone else. I hope that that is agreed by all. There are many of my constituents who in certain matters would be very much better represented by someone else. That is obvious.
Therefore, the principle of "one man, one vote" seems to me to be rather a theoretical principle. If you admit that one man may need, for the purposes of national business, more than one kind of vote, surely you are prepared to go a step further and say that the university graduate may properly need the representation both of a university member and of a member elected by the constituency where he resides. You may, of course, say that many other people ought
to have the same sort of facility, that it is a very bad thing that a member of the Miners' Federation should be forced to be represented exclusively by one of the officials of the local Miners' Federation.

Mr. EDE: There are 10,000 miners in my constituency.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is not a member of the Miners' Federation, so that my remarks do not apply to him; but they do apply to a great many other miners in other constituencies. It may be said that the miner may suffer from being confined merely to representation by an official of the local branch of the Miners' Federation, and very probably he does. But surely, having agreed that the university constituencies are to go on, there is nothing in principle which makes it wrong for a man who is registered as a voter of the university constituency and the man who is registered as a voter in respect of a residential qualification in another constituency, to desire to have two kinds of representation? He may need it. It is true that other people may need it quite as much. Now we come to the real difference between us. Hon. Members are quite prepared to admit a course of reasoning such as I have tried to place before them, but they say "This is privilege. Other people have not got it, and therefore you must not have it." Of course, there is an alternative. Let us think out how everyone who needs it may have a similar privilege.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: While the Noble Lord is on that theme will he answer this question? A Minister has graduated from South Wales University and comes to live in the Rhondda Valley. The Noble Lord says he is to have a vote for the Rhondda Valley and also to be able to take part in the university election. Where is the need, in such a case, for two votes?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. and gallant Member puts a case ad hominem I reply that I think the Minister might very well need a second representative besides the hon. and gallant Member for the purpose of certain classes of business. I should say the same thing of every hon. Member in this House. If the only argument against having a double vote for
the universities is that it is a privilege, that there are not enough university graduates, that the same privilege should be extended to other people, that people who have strong professional interests, like members of trade unions, besides electing someone to represent their professional interest, should be able to elect someone else to represent their more national and perhaps more idealistic interests, I agree.
I ask hon. Members to approach the problem constructively and to see how it is possible to extend the privileges which at present are enjoyed only by a few, instead of trying to impoverish national life by taking away the privilege from the few who enjoy it. That is the difference between my point of view and the point of view of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). We equally realise the evils and defects of our present system. I realise the inequalities, but I would rather try to widen the area of privilege for which a reasonable justification could be found than narrow it by robbing certain people of the means of making a varied contribution to the needs of the country simply because other people have not at the moment got the same opportunity.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to speak on this matter, because I am a university voter. I was rather intrigued by the contribution of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and I wonder how much reality there is in his suggestion. I know that he has a great deal of influence at the other end of this building.

Lord E. PERCY: May I ask the hon. Member what he means? I was unaware of it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Possibly some of us ascribe a little more power to the Noble Lord in that direction than he is aware of, but I think that on previous occasions the representatives of his family have shown that they count for a great deal at the other end of this building, and I do not think that the Noble Lord should feel ashamed of the fact.

Lord E. PERCY: I am ashamed of nothing that any relatives of mine have ever done—even that considerable number of them who have been hanged for treason—but I object to being personally identified with anything they do.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Noble Lord is trying to make a very subtle distinction, but I am sure that he is of sufficient importance among his colleagues in this House to ensure that, if he is serious in the proposal which he has made, there will be an opportunity in another place, if this Bill gets there, for something to be done in a practical way to implement his idea. I shall watch with interest to see if from the Conservative representatives in another place proposals will come for the establishment of a number of constituencies representing the organised trade union movement of this country, and returning a number of members equal to the number at present returned by the university constituencies. If something of that kind does not happen, then I am afraid the Noble Lord will be held to have treated us rather shabbily by making that suggestion to-night.
I think that the universities and their representatives have taken up a very undignified line in connection with this matter. It has been pitiful to see the attitude adopted by those, who claim special representation in this House on the ground of the special services which they can render, by reason of the special educational opportunities which they have enjoyed. They claim this privilege on the ground that they might not be able to get into this House in any other way than by separate representation and through a university constituency. As one who has been trained at a university I have been greatly pained by the inferiority complex of my fellow graduates in this connection and their despair of ever getting into the House of Commons unless they can get in via a university constituency. I am surprised that the representative of Cambridge University and other university representatives in presenting their arguments here should take the line which they have taken.
The Government ought to have given the House an opportunity of changing its mind on this matter. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment suggested that in the number of minutes which would elapse between the different Divisions taken in connection with this matter, some hon. Members on this side might develop a sense of pity for the poor university graduates who would be in the sorry position of not being allowed two votes and thus given an advantage
as compared with their fellow-citizens. In view of what has been said during the discussion, especially the speeches of the Noble Lord and those who sit behind him, I suggest that the Government ought to allow the House an opportunity of changing its mind on the question of whether there should be any university representation at all or not. Here is how the matter appears to me. I am closely associated in this House with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is a university voter like myself, and with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We live together. Can any hon. Member give any reason why the hon. Member for Bridgeton and I should each have two votes at an election, while the hon. Member for Gorbals should only have one? You may say, after listening to one of his speeches, that he has twice the capacity of his university colleagues. That might be said with a certain amount of truth, because he has a very agile mind, though he himself would disclaim it. When we face up to the facts, however, I myself feel utterly ashamed of university graduates and representatives of universities coming here and pleading, "Please, sir, give us two votes." There is nothing to be said for such a plea.
I believe that the decision of the House in Committee was very largely the result of sentiment and a lot of unreasonable and unreasoning ideas in the minds of hon. Members. I am sorry if we are not to have an opportunity of altering that decision and dealing with the matter again on a reasonable basis. University people ought to be willing to depend upon reason, and no real reason has been given in favour of special university representation. If university people have the ability and the character, if they have what ought to have been given to them as a result of their studies in the university, then they will be able to find their way to the House of Commons in sufficiently large numbers by the ordinary methods of election. Any self-respecting body of men would scorn to get this special privilege as compared with others. There might be reasons for giving those in less fortunate circumstances special representation in this House but the people who claim that they have had the best opportunities of obtaining knowledge, should be the last to ask for such a privilege. I have intervened in this
discussion to say how thoroughly ashamed I am at representatives of universities, at university graduates, putting themselves into the humiliating position of not being able to take the same position in the State as other citizens and depending upon their energy, their ability, their character to enable them to give the fullest service to the House and the country.

Miss RATHBONE: The speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) reminded me of the essay of the French schoolchild who wrote:
The cat was a naughty animal and defended itself when it was attacked.
He has poured contempt on university Members because they have defended themselves when they have been attacked. Before that, we had a speech from the Home Secretary, in which he was at pains to disclaim the very graceful tribute paid him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), who thanked the Government for yielding gracefully to the declared wish of the House. The Home Secretary could not bear that tribute, and hastened to assure us that he yielded as ungraciously and in as ungenerous a spirit as possible. It was obvious, without that assurance, that the Government yielded—I think wisely, if not graciously—because they recognised, what is an unchallengeable fact, that the rebuff which they received on the question of the university vote on Clause 4 was the outcome of no chance or snatch vote, but of the deliberate will of the House. No one who knows all the history that lay behind that vote could say for a moment that it was a scratch vote, and many of the Members who voted for the retention of the university vote on that occasion did so in the face of the strongest and in some cases unscrupulous pressure brought to bear upon them.
On this, which is probably the last occasion on which one would have an opportunity of addressing the House on this subject, I wish to warn hon. Members opposite that they are making a grave mistake if, in the attack which they have made on the university vote, they are animated by the belief that they are attacking a nest of Toryism and of privilege. I remember once, on one of the very few occasions when I ever saw
a horse race, thinking that the horse that was coming in second was going to win because something had gone wrong with the leading horse, but just as he was beginning to gain something went wrong either with the horse or the jockey, and it practically gave up the fight, and so lost the chance of winning.
I am speaking on this subject of something that I know and have had a better opportunity of judging than any other Member in this House, because I alone have tried the experiment, with no organisation of any kind behind me, of coming for the first time into a constituency where two-thirds of the voters were men and of running a university contest on purely non-party lines and with a thoroughly progressive programme. Therefore I know, as nobody else here can know, how ludicrously false and utterly untrue it is to suppose that the universities of to-day are repositories of class privilege and old-fashioned prejudice.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): I have been waiting for a long time for the hon. Lady to come to the point of the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I was trying to make the point that the opposition to the Amendment was based on the whole question of the right of university members to have votes at all. Every speech that has been made has been an attack on the special privilege. I suggest that one of the disadvantages of allowing university members a choice of votes is that it puts a barrier in the way of that more independent attitude towards university representation which makes it the easier to advocate on the ground that if the university voters had two votes they could use their local vote to give expression to their party feelings and their university vote to give expression to their non-party point of view. I believe the time will come when the Labour party may have reason to regret that they have pared down as far as possible the privileges of a university voter, because in the days when they may return a majority Government they may find it no easier than in the past to fill the House with Members of the right type, and that may be one way of securing the return to Parliament of thoroughly progressive-minded
men and women, who might not get into the ordinary, rather narrow party channels which lead to success in an ordinary industrial constituency.
I think that the half-loaf that we are getting is better than no bread at all, and I believe that a large proportion of university graduates will prefer to retain their university vote, but I think that the form of plural voting which we had did no harm to anybody, because the number of plural votes was too few to make a very great difference, but it tended to make university constituencies a thing by themselves and able to make a separate and differential kind of contribution towards the life of the House.

Mr. EDE: The hon. Lady the Member for the combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) started off by telling us that university representatives were like cats to defend themselves, but I have never known a cat defend itself less cattily than the hon. Lady has defended herself this evening. I feel that the speeches of the Noble Lord the Member for Hasting" (Lord E. Percy) and of the hon. Lady were both a very long way from the real issue before us. These university graduates are having a privilege preserved for them, and they have merely to make their choice as to whether they wish to vote as citizens or as graduates. They have that choice left them, and I cannot see that they can claim anything else.
The Noble Lord drew attention to the fact that we are all very complex creatures on occasion. Even when the person who is supposed to represent us in this House is a Member of our own party—and I have never been represented in this House or on any other body but by a person of my own party—we find that on certain issues our particular representative does not really represent us. Take myself. On matters that concern State and Church, I find myself represented here by the Junior Lord of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle); on matters where my professional interest is concerned, I find myself represented by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) or the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning); and if I desire to have those particular matters brought in front of the House, this House, with 615 Members,
is always sure to have within it somebody who will represent those particular points of view. The university voter, if he desires to be most closely in touch with this House as a graduate and not as a citizen, has the opportunity of making his choice and exercising it.
It was said by the Noble Lord that he supported the Amendment in the name of the dignity of the House and the good name of the country, but he did not go on to tell us in which way those two purposes were to be served by carrying the Amendment. There may have been in the past, and there may be now, certain hon. Members from the universities who added dignity to this House by their personal contributions to its Debates, but I have heard it suggested sometimes that the dignity of the House might have been better served if an hon. Member representing one or other of the universities had not intervened. University and graduate Members of this House have proved themselves to be very much human beings stirred by the same passions as the rest of us, except mathematicians. The acute mathematician never is a real human being. The Noble Lord went on to deal with the question of the trade union, and he said that the trade unionist has a double representation. Is that a fact?

Lord E. PERCY: I did not say anything of the kind. I only admitted that the trade unionist might require double representation as well as anyone else.

Mr. EDE: The Noble Lord might not have gone so far as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who suggested that because a representative of a trade union sat in this House, and a member of that trade union had a vote territorially as well, he was doubly represented. There is this difference, however, that the trade union representatives have to go to a territorial constituency and secure adhesion to his cause of a certain number of people who are attached to him on a territorial basis, whereas the university graduate has preserved for him a person who will represent him in his capacity as a graduate, and not in his capacity as an ordinary citizen on a territorial basis.
While the Noble Lord poured scorn on the phrase, "One man, one vote," I am bound to say that it is one of the things
that I regard with great veneration. I believe in it thoroughly; it is one of the dogmas of the faith. We do not argue about it; either we believe in it, or we do not, but I regard it as an essential matter. I am a Unitarian, and the Noble Lord may be a Trinitarian. There you have a question of an absolute dogma about which you cannot argue. To the Unitarian the Trinitarian position is so incomprehensible that he cannot understand people believing in it, and I can appreciate the Trinitarian saying he cannot understand the Unitarian not being able to believe in the Trinitarian position. It is so with the truth of "One man, one vote." We do not believe that all men are equal. We may believe that the Creator intended all men to be equal when He originally made man in His own image, but we do say that, taking the great mass of the people, the total sum of illogicalities is the production of this House, which for 600 years or more has worked and is working increasingly—

Lord E. PERCY: With the plural vote.

Mr. EDE: I was about to say working increasingly well. As we have got further and further away from the idea that privilege and not citizenship is the basis, we have got nearer and nearer to a better House. I am not one of those who believe that this House is losing its prestige. I do not believe it for a single minute. I know that some Members are seriously concerned at the prestige of this House being lost. My reading of history convinces me that each generation has felt that this House was losing prestige. Peter Wentworth felt it in 1572, and everybody has felt it since; but as we have got further and further away from privilege and closer and closer to democracy, this House has been increasingly useful. In preserving the university vote, I believe that the university voters are keeping a privilege to which they are not entitled. But the House has decided that university representation should be retained. We honour that decision, but we say that, if you desire representation as a graduate, you shall not also have representation as a citizen. I believe that that is a completely just and logical view to take in view of the decision of the House in Committee.

Mr. ATKINSON: The hon. Member seemed to think that the argument behind this Amendment rests upon a desire to give two votes to a certain class of people because they are more fitted to have two votes than other people. That is not the argument behind this Amendment. Once you have accepted the principle that the universities shall have a separate representation—and we must accept that principle for the purposes of this discussion, because it has been decided—surely you support it because you think that the university view is of value to the House, and that it adds to the efficiency of the House. That must be the only reason for supporting the university vote. If we accept that principle—and I repeat that for the purpose of this argument we must treat it as accepted—we want that view to be as representative as possible. We want the view to represent the university opinion; in other words, the opinion of the great body of graduates. We do not want to represent the point of view of merely a small section of the graduates of universities. We surely want to induce as many of the graduates to vote as possible so that the House will get the real view of the universities.
The point is not that we are giving a man two votes for his own benefit, but that we are inviting him to exercise his vote for a university representative so that the House may get the benefit of that point of view. It is not reasonable to invite a graduate to do that at the sacrifice of his vote as a citizen. The justification of this Amendment is that, once you accept separate representation for the universities, you want it to be really representative; you can only have it really representative if you induce the great body of graduates to vote, and it is not reasonable or fair to ask them to join in that representation at the cost of the sacrifice of their votes as citizens. It is all to the good of the House that as many graduates should vote as possible. If you do not accept that view, you ought to reject university representation altogether.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: This Debate has gone chiefly on the lines of Members of the other side jettisoning first one of their points and then another. We began with the university vote being made out to be absolutely essential for the intellectual
good of the nation, and, when it was pointed out that this proposed new Clause does not abolish the university vote, hon. Members had to abandon that, because it is obvious that if the university vote is of that enormous importance to the welfare of our nation, those who have the choice of vote can exercise their university vote and neglect their other vote, if this Bill goes through as it is. Then we have another speaker on the other side putting out the further position that, although it was not good for the nation, it was good for the individual voter, but it is a very select and very exclusive body of voters which has this double vote. The case of the miner was introduced, and it was said that it would be a good thing for the miner, but it is not proposed that the miner should have a double vote and to have a choice of representatives, one to represent his higher self and the other to represent his lower self. It is only for an exclusive body of persons. I want the House to realise that this Bill is not doing away with whatever value there is in the university vote. It remains to be exercised by those who think it important to use one of the two votes they have for that purpose, to the exclusion of the other, and I take it that every graduate of a university who feels it important to have direct representation of universities will see that it is maintained, so there is no question of university representation disappearing, unless the graduates wish it to disappear.
Another thing that has been jettisoned by the other side is logic. They have told us that in this matter we must put logic on one side. We often have to put logic on one side in private and political life, but what do we do after we have put logic on one side? We must have some principle to guide us, and if we reject logic, and say we do not want to defend a thing on the principles of higher mathematics or something of that kind, the only argument we can fall back upon is that of expediency. Apart from principle or logic, is it useful, in practical experience, to have direct representation of these special parties in the House? We had the opportunity of seeing this part of the constitution at work, and if it has any value we should know of it. I have watched the university representatives here, and in the tone of
their speeches, in their approach to the subjects they have dealt with, I have seen no difference between them and any other Members of the House. Coming fresh to this House from outside, I expected that the university representatives would have special contributions to make to our Debates, but I defy anyone to put a finger on any one suggestion, any one attempt to solve any of the problems before us, which shows that a university representative has had a training which has better fitted him to deal with our problems. If we are to abandon logic and fall upon experience, again, unfortunately we have empty hands. I think the university Members themselves would be prepared to admit that there is one of the university Members who stands out, intellectually, shoulder high above them all, but only one, and how often is he here?—[Interruption.] Apart from illness—I am sorry to hear that he is ill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member's argument can be in order on this Amendment.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I am arguing that the attempt to give a special vote to university undergraduates because of the value—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not the question before the House. The question is whether a university graduate shall have a second vote apart from his university vote.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: That is exactly my line. I bow to your Ruling. Such a man has got two votes, and he is free to exercise which he likes. My contention is that the attempt to allow him two votes is an attempt to give him a chance of riding in both carriages, in the first-class as well as in the third, an opportunity to vote because he is a very select man and an opportunity to vote because he is with the common crowd who have only a choice of an ordinary politician. We have been asked that the university voter should have two votes, one for his university and one as an ordinary voter. What difference does the choice make? In either case he has not an opportunity of voting upon some high principle. In either case his choice can only lie between two or three or four candidates. If he were asked to vote upon the Einstein theory or upon the question of
adopting the system of Plato's republic, I can understand how that would make a direct appeal to the members of universities, who are, no doubt, well acquainted with the classics, but the point is that they are only in the position of having to make a common or garden choice between candidates representing, not principles which are specially concerned with the sort of training and academic life they have had but principles that have sprung up out of our common everyday life, the principles we have to use to solve some of the day-today problems which we encounter. I have yet to learn how a man who has had a university training but is confined in his decision to exactly the same choice as anybody else is any the better fitted to solve those problems than any other man. It also occurs to me that that is one of the reasons why we notice that in the universities the vote always goes in one direction.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not the question before the House. The question before us is whether a university voter should be allowed to vote in another constituency as well as for his university.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I am trying to point out that whether we give him one, two or six votes, he has just the same choice to make, and that the country gains nothing, and our political system gains nothing, by giving a special vote to a special body of people who in the long run have to exercise it in the same common or garden way as the rest of us. The values of votes are also concerned in this question of giving one man two as against another man's one. There is one of the universities, with about 4,000 voters, which has three representatives for those 4,000 voters. I think it is 4,000 voters. I am sorry; that is wrong. In the Scottish universities there are 44,000 persons with three votes. There are some extraordinary inequalities when it comes to the question of how many votes you are giving persons. Those 44,000 persons have three Members. In the constituency which I represent, at the last election there were 99,000 voters, and they had one representative under the system for which the other side is struggling, while 44,000 voters had three Members.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not discussing the question of the number of voters in any constituency, but whether university graduates should have two votes.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I quite under-stand that, but I do not see that I can illustrate the point without showing the extraordinary differences which arise under the present system. I fully support the principle of "One man, one vote," not because it is to me an article of faith or the law of the Medes and Persians, but because it is a practical principle. If you are to have equality, then to give one person two votes and another person one vote is not an intelligible principle. As things stand, no attempt has been made to prove that there is any special reason why graduates should have two votes.

Sir C. OMAN: It has been conceded by the Government that we are to have a university vote. That is a non-local vote, which has nothing to do with residence or the place where one's business lies. In addition, we are to have votes for graduates, who are persons with duties and interests like other men. We cannot see why, because we have had the university vote conceded to us by the Government's surrender to the wishes of the House, we are not to have the citizen's right of "No taxation without representation." I am taxed on my house, and if I am not allowed to vote locally but only for a university, then I am in the position of the person who is denied any right to the principle of "No taxation without representation." That I represent a university constituency has nothing to do with my local urban or country qualifications. You cannot claim that university voters, in common with all other citizens, should not have the right to no taxation without representation. An hon. Member opposite, with whose views I very much sympathise, got very near to the end of the subject matter under discussion when he talked about unitarians, and said that nature made all men equal. Nature intended Cain and Abel to be equal and good, but nature failed. Either nature makes such mistakes that we cannot really trust her, or else we must swallow some very strange persons.
I am acquainted with four people, all of whom have a single vote. One is a
very great man who has been honoured by every honour the Crown can give except the peerage; the second has been intermittently in a lunatic asylum; the third, who is on the dole, is a very skilled workman who loses every place he gets owing to an unfortunate predeliction to petty dishonesty; and the fourth is a newly naturalised Polish Jew. That these people should have votes equal to myself and the hon. Member opposite seems to me strange. The theory of "One man, one vote" becomes quite intoxicating when one hears it so often, but the fact is that no two men are equal. It is absurd to say they are. Two of the greatest geniuses are not quite equal, and two of the worst and most idle tramps are not quite equal. There is no equality in the world, and I cannot in the least see why one set of people should not have more votes than another. My own colleague the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) is one of the most knowledgeable, wise and eloquent Members in this House, and I cannot see in the least why he should not have seven, votes. If some of the other people to whom I have alluded get one vote, he should have from seven to 17 votes, and the claim we make that he should have two seems to me exceedingly moderate.

Mr. ARNOTT: I have listened with some attention to the speeches made on the other side in defence not of a vote for the university or representation of a university, but for a second vote for university graduates. We have had all sorts of reasons advanced why certain people should have extra voting power. We have had a new argument for the continuance of the university vote. I have gathered from the speeches that the university voter is a kind of Jekyll and Hyde, who is highly qualified to express an opinion on certain matters, on which, owing to his university training, he is exceedingly well informed, but who loses that qualification immediately he goes to reside among ordinary people in an ordinary constituency. In that constituency he becomes a normal human being, and has got to vote as an ordinary human being on the same issues as other voters who are not university graduates. Apparently, as a university graduate, he has a superior function to perform, and, therefore, we have to give him an opportunity of being represented in that capacity.
The Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) went further, and suggested that that peculiar characteristic was not confined to university graduates, but that other people had it also. I might have views on the cricket championship, on music, on literature and on politics, and, if I could get a certain representation on all those points, I think I could fill the House of Commons without much difficulty. I know this would be driving logic to extremes, but the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings never gave a single reason why a university should have that special privilege and why no one else should have it. A previous speaker suggested that some people are much more qualified for exercising votes than others, but he did not suggest any argument to justify some people having seven votes, others one vote, and others no vote at all.

Sir C. OMAN: I did not make the suggestion because I thought it would be unpopular, but my suggestion would be that it should be by a very stringent examination in civics, which I should be prepared to conduct myself.

Mr. ARNOTT: I always understood that universities deprecated examinations. Under the system suggested, I do not see how you would be able to distinguish the sheep from the goats, and the problem would become much more difficult. I think it has been clearly shown that there are no alternatives which are not ridiculous.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I find that a remark of mine which I made earlier was misunderstood. I did not mean to be rude, and I was merely suggesting that the inequalities of nature could not be corrected by means of giving additional votes.

Sir C. OMAN: The so-called inequalities of nature from which certain unhappy people suffer can best be remedied by the direct powers of the law. For example, I believe that prisons and lunatic asylums exist for the benefit of those who by nature are so affected as to be abnormal.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have listened to a great deal of the Debate on this Measure, and I think we have now reached a most interesting stage. The original Bill contained a proposal for the abolition of university representation but the House of Commons deleted that proposal.
We have now an Amendment to the new Clause proposed by the Home Secretary, the words of which are "save that an elector for any university constituency may vote for that constituency as well as for one other constituency." I want to put one or two points before the Committee against the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst). First of all I think that to call it a university vote is quite a misnomer because the graduate does not get the vote until he leaves the university for good.

Mr. G. WILSON: That is absolutely wrong and the hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. A man is entitled to vote for the university as soon as he has taken his Bachelor of Arts degree, and it makes no difference whether he leaves the university or stays there.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member seems to know more about this point than I do, but I would like to ask him what proportion of university graduates who are entitled to this vote remain in the university?

Mr. WILSON: I agree that it is a small proportion, but the hon. Member said that those who remain at the university do not get the vote.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman has challenged my knowledge on this point-May I remind him that I have a son who has passed a university degree and he did not get the university franchise until he had left, and so far as the Northern universities are concerned I should not be surprised if quite 95 per cent. did not qualify for this vote before leaving the university? The hon. Member said that the universities were becoming more democratic because the children of working men were going there. If that is the case then it is possible that nearly 100 per cent. of them do not get this franchise until they have left the university. I am not familiar with Oxford and Cambridge, but I know something about the Northern universities. I have never understood how it comes about that a graduate of a university, merely on the strength of his degree, was entitled to vote in two constituencies. If a young man becomes a civil engineer, as much is spent on his education, and
he is as highly qualified as the person who secures a university degree. But he is not entitled to more than one vote, and the same applies to an architect or a surveyor. All these people are as highly trained in their way, and their parents have spent as much money on their education, as in the case of those who have obtained university degrees, but, as stated, they are not entitled to vote in two places. If there is any argument at all for the abolition both of university representation and of the university franchise, it is in the speech of the hon. and learned Member, and I think that anyone who listened to it will agree that that is so.
The hon. Member for the Northern Universities (Miss Rathbone) used the rather strange argument that we must have this franchise and university representation because, she asked, what would become of the Cabinets of the future unless they were composed of some men and women who had secured degrees? Strange as it may seem, however, the Prime Minister of the day is not a university graduate; the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day is not a university graduate, and the Home Secretary, who is in charge of this Bill, has never been to a university at all. Surely, therefore, it cannot be argued that the State cannot be carried on without a Cabinet and Ministry of Members who have obtained university degrees. I feel sure that that argument is a fallacy.
To pass to another point, the hon. Lady would have it that she was elected on a progressive programme, but her speech to-night was one of the most reactionary speeches that I have heard for a long time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment, naturally, wants to add it to the proposed new Clause of the Home Secretary. The result would, therefore, entitle a university graduate to vote in two places, while the proposed new Clause would confine the vote to one constituency. The argument has been used that university men and women are not adequately represented in this House, and that there is something peculiar about education of that kind which gives them special knowledge, the benefit of which ought to be given to the nation and the House of Commons.
I do not want to be offensive by saying that this claim is based more or less on conceit. While I claim to know something about the administration of the approved societies of this country, it would be a terrible thing to suggest to the House of Commons, and I am sure that the House would resent it, that I should come here as the representative of the approved societies of this country. Although I know something about the National Health Insurance scheme, and about widows' and old age pensions and the social services of this country, I must nevertheless go to Westhoughton and take my chance of being elected by an ordinary constituency in the ordinary way. If I might say so, I cannot understand why other people are not willing to stand their chances in the same way. If they are so educated, so brilliant, and so clever, there is no reason why they should not be elected for any constituency in the land, but I doubt very much whether some of them could ever be elected on the lines on which we are returned.
I do not want to speak in any derogatory way about education. The lack of education from which I have suffered I would like to remove at one stroke if I could; but, as I mentioned on the Second Reading, I took the trouble to find out how many Members of the present House of Commons had secured degrees from the several universities of this country. I forget the exact figure at the moment, but I think that about 250 Members of the present House of Commons have secured degrees from the several universities. I do not want to speak disparagingly of them either, but, listening to their speeches, I do not know that one could tell who had been to a university and who had not. It does not follow therefore that a better contribution in debate can be expected as a result of education even of that kind. I have always looked upon education as a means of helping a man forward in life, and not as adding something that Nature has omitted. The greatest philosophers of all the ages never saw a university. The saviours of mankind never saw a university; and, if I may say so with all respect, the Saviour to whom we all pay tribute, never went to a university. Consequently, I cannot think that we should put the universities on such a high plane as some hon. Gentlemen would like.
The students in the newer universities, at any rate, undoubtedly proceed there in order to secure degrees, and I do not think I am wrong in saying that, in the main, their object in securing degrees is that they may perhaps secure better positions than their fathers had. I fail to understand, as I have already said, why persons who have secured university degrees should have two votes while their brothers and neighbours, who are as highly qualified in other spheres of life, as engineers, architects, and so on, cannot get this privilege. I hope, therefore, that the House will turn down this Amendment.

Mr. ROSS: I was a little surprised to hear some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and, as I have always listened to him with the greatest respect, and have always had a great respect for his views, I was a little, shall I say, distressed that he should have introduced into this Debate a type of argument which I do not think was altogether appropriate. He has alluded to One who, whether He had a university degree or not, was at all events found in the Temple disputing with the doctors, which shows that He at all events had a respect for learning.
Another reason which has induced me to intervene was that the hon. Member did not hesitate to attack the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) in her absence, and I am sure that no attack would distress her more than that she should be accused of being peculiarly reactionary. I should have liked to flatter her and say that I thought she was, but I am afraid I cannot go so far. After all, what did she say that has offended the hon. Member? As far as I understood it, what she said was that she had inquired into the matter, and had found that in every constituency the working class was in the majority. Does the hon. Member resent that, or is it because he finds, to his disappointment, that that class does not always vote for such as he? [Interruption.]
It is suggested that they should be given another chance, but, in any case, even so, they have not fulfilled what I am sure the hon. Member would consider to be their destiny by giving a clear majority to him and his friends. Although
on this side we have certain differences of opinion, we certainly have considerably more votes than hon. Members opposite, and I suppose it is that canker, which has been pointed out by the hon. Lady with her usual care and attention, that has rankled with the hon. Member and has caused him to make this attack, which I should have thought was a little unprovoked, because it is very rarely that the hon. Lady does not vote with the Government. I suppose, however, that on this one occasion, because she showed that there are still some people who judge things by their sense of right and wrong and vote against the Government, the hon. Member thought that that was something that he should check and rebuke.
As for the rest of his argument, what does it amount to? Is it an argument against the university vote? On the contrary, as I understand it, it is an argument that other classes besides the members of universities should be given extra votes. He cited the case of the engineer, a skilled person who has not been through a university course. I am sure he would like to see such persons have extra privileges of civic responsibility, and I am sure that they would well fulfil them, but no such suggestion has been made by hon. Members opposite, or by the hon. Member himself. He merely makes use of such an argument on a Committee point like this in order to try to discredit arguments which have been put forward from this side and which he cannot meet in any other way. Let us have a little of that kind of spirit. Let us have, instead of the usual catch phrases to which we are accustomed, some real attempt at progress and some constructive idea of civic responsibility for those who deserve it most.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. HAMILTON: It is not very easy at this stage of the Debate to think of new points to put before the House, but there is one which I should like to urge. I think the House has broadly accepted the principle of one man one vote in its wide, general application. When we are discussing the question whether or not university graduates should have an extra vote, we are discussing what represents a large and an increasing breach in that principle. One of the things that is most encouraging is the fact that the possession of a university training is no longer
the privilege of a small group. It is growing increasingly common, and we all hope it will get common more and more rapidly as the time goes on. If we give this group a double vote, we are not giving it to a handful, but to a body which is growing, and which we hope will grow. We on this side appreciate enormously the immense advantage which a university training can give, but we appreciate it in the sense in which, perhaps, the most searching writer on the universities from a civic point of view put it. John Henry Newman said a university training was a great ordinary means to a great ordinary end. That is the point we have in mind, that university training is to be sought after as a means of equipping ordinary citizens to fulfil their functions better and to get more enjoyment out of life. It is from that point of view that we ask, really on behalf of university training itself, that those who have enjoyed it should not compromise a valuable gift by asking a privilege in addition. Every university graduate is, and cannot help being, in some degree in a privileged position. The discipline and the training have put him or her in a position to exercise persuasion more effectively. It is an advantage which carries with it responsibilities. It is an advantage which ought to be responsibly recognised, and to say that a university graduate is asked to make a sacrifice in choosing only to exercise his vote for a university representative is a very curious view of the value of university representation and of university Members in the House. It seems to me from that point of view, the question of the value of university representatives as such and university representation as such, that we are now going to be in a position for the first time to judge it on its real merits.
I should like to have seen the vote swept away but, accepting the position we now have, surely it amounts to this. Whereas in the past you had university elections conducted on any and every general political issue, you now have the possibility of a more select electorate which, if it thinks it worth while to use its vote for that purpose, will exercise it in relation to university issues, and possibly send us Members who take that point of view
very seriously, that we shall not have the picture of a university election conducted as it was when Gladstone was still a Member, when he had difficulty in getting returned because he was not too keen on disarmament and was not sound on the question of rifle clubs. I think those who plead the cause of university

training do it a very bad service when they suggest that to vote for a university candidate is a sacrifice.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 247.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[10.4 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Eden, Captain Anthony
O'Connor, T. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
England, Colonel A.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert
Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ferguson, Sir John
Rathbone, Eleanor


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fison. F. G. Clavering
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, M. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Remer, John R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzoni, Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grace, John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rots, Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, Leslie
Grenfeil, Edward C. (City of London)
Salmon, Major I.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Simms, Major-General J.


Buchan, John
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, R. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smithers, Waldron


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerset, Thomas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Christle, J. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tinne, J. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major William Philip
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Train, J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cowan, D. M.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cranborne, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Millar, J. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Arnott, John
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ayles, Walter
Benson, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes. Alfred John
Birkett, W. Norman


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, James
Blindell, James


Angell, Sir Norman
Batey, Joseph
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Bowen, J. W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brooke, W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brothers, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Burgass, F. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Chater, Daniel
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sanders, W. S.


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Sandham, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sawyer, G. F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees, J.
Scott, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Cove, William G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Scurr, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sexton, Sir James


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dallas, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dalton, Hugh
Longden, F.
Sherwood, G. H.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Shillaker, J. F.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shinwell, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Duncan, Charles
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Ede, James Chuter
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Edge, Sir William
MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Elmley, Viscount
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Foot, Isaac
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Freeman, Peter
Manning, E. L.
Sorensen, R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marcus, M.
Sullivan, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mosley)
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Glassey, A. E.
Matters, L. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gossling, A. G.
Maxton, James
Tillett, Ben


Gould, F.
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Middleton, G.
Toole, Joseph


Gray, Milner
Mills, J. E.
Tout, W. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Milner, Major J.
Townend, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague. Frederick
Vaughan, David


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Walkden, A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Walker, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walkins, F. C.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Muff, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Harbord, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, Hugh
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
West, F. R.


Hayday, Arthur
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Westwood, Joseph


Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
White, H. G.


Hicks, Ernest George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. [...] (Man., Blackley)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hoffman, P. C.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hopkin, Daniel
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Palmer, E. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Horrabin, J. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wise, E. F.


Isaacs, George
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Jenkins, Sir William
Picton-Turbervill, Edith



John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pole, Major D. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pybus, Percy John
Charleton.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Quibell D. J. K.



Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I intend to call is that standing
in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy).

CLAUSE 1.—(Voting at parliamentary elections to be by method of alter native vote.)

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the Clause.
We did not challenge a Division on the last question, partly because the sense of the House had already been taken on the Second Reading of the Clause, and partly also because of circumstances to which I wish to allude, namely, the fact that we have been left under the Guillotine with only a quarter-of-an-hour to debate the whole question of the alternative vote. It is, I think, the general practice of this House that, when it is operating under a Guillotine Resolution, it is regarded as being for the Opposition to decide more or less how long any particular subject may be discussed in order that the Opposition may be able to raise the questions they desire to raise before the Guillotine falls. But this evening there has been a continuance of the dropping fire Debate on the last Motion we were debating, carried on largely by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which has prevented us from discussing the alternative vote for more than a quarter-of-an-hour.
In spite of the shortness of time, I should like to ask the House to consider the Motion that I am making, to leave out Clause 1, as a constitutional question of the most immediate importance. We have spent a long time to-day largely discussing genera] principles of political theory, like one man one vote. I do not wish to discuss this question on any theoretical ground. I wish rather to ask the House to consider what is the present position of the nation, what is the present position of Parliament in relation to national problems, and whether the position of Parliament is likely to be improved or worsened by the adoption of the Alternative Vote. We are all agreed that we are faced with unprecedented problems and unparalleled crises, and we are all agreed that it is necessary for the Government of this country at this moment to take very strong action to adopt a positive policy. We differ as between hon. Members opposite, hon. Members behind me and hon. Members below the Gangway on this side as to what those measures should be, but we all feel that the urgent need is a strong
lead by a strong executive, and that the chief business of Parliament during the next five years is going to be to deal with the industrial and commercial reconstruction of the country, on energetic lines.
At the same time, we are all conscious of the fact that this Parliament is showing itself—we may differ as to the reason—utterly incapable of taking any strong action of that kind. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) told us that Parliament had been getting better and better and better all the time since the days of Queen Elizabeth. I am afraid that the hon. Member represents that vague, woolly, comfortable, evolutionary philosophy which was depicted by Lewis Carroll when he drew the character of the White Queen in "Alice through the Looking Glass"—the lady who, it will be remembered, went on saying "Better and better and better and better" until her voice turned gradually into a bleat, and she turned into a sheep. That kind of optimism is one of the most dangerous features about Parliament of the present day. There is no explanation given by hon. Members opposite of this impotence and parlousness. I do not know what hon. Members would give as the explanation, but I know what their supporters in the country always give as the explanation. There is always the gentleman at the back of the audience who says: "We are in office, but not in power." Hon. Members opposite say: "We depend upon the Liberal party below the Gangway, and we have no power or initiative of our own." There may be a good deal of truth in that.
What is the object of this Bill and of this Clause, if it has any object at all? It is to ensure that every future Parliament shall be as like this Parliament as possible; that any future Labour Government shall be at least as dependent on hon. Members below the Gangway, a professed anti-Socialist party, as they are at the present moment. It is a proposal that every future Parliament shall be as ineffective and as unsatisfactory to any full-blooded member of the Labour party as the present Parliament. I hope I shall not offend hon. Members opposite, but let us realise the character of the present Parliament. Even if there has been a steady improvement for the last 300 years we have had many Parliaments which represented a level somewhat below the
average. We have had the Short Parliament, the Barebones Parliament, and the Addled Parliament. The addled Parliament might be a good name for the present Parliament, but this Parliament will certainly go down to history, if it is remembered at all, as the silly Parliament, in which there were 615 members all equally impotent owing to the composition of the House. That impotence this Clause proposes to perpetuate.
I know that hon. Members opposite do not take this Clause seriously, they do not believe that it will have any such effect. They believe that under the Alternative Vote, equally with any other form of vote, the Liberal party below the Gangway will steadily dwindle. They believe they have cheated their allies in this bargain, and are going to get off scot free. They may be right. But if there is any reason for wasting the time of Parliament on this Bill it is in order to perpetuate the kind of party divisions which exist in this Parliament. There is I think, however, a deeper reason for the impotence of this Parliament, and, if hon. Members opposite will allow me to say, for the impotence of the party opposite. The party opposite, and great credit to them for the fact, have climbed steadily into power by dint of the careful organisation of large masses of men, the whole mass of the trade union movement, and it invariably happens that when a political party is founded upon that elaborate party organisation which is necessary to bind together large masses of men it begins to lose momentum, and what creeps in—and it is the great danger of democracy—is what is called in the United States representation by the most available man. It is not the man with the greatest power of leadership who becomes President of the United States, or a member of Congress or a Senator. It is not the man with the most positive views and the greatest imagination; it is the available man, who has trodden on as

few toes as possible, who is colourless enough to represent the largest range and variety of opinion. And that is the man who, even without the Alternative Vote, tends invariably to be returned in enormous democracies which are so large that they can only be made workable by rigid and elaborate party organisation.

Hon. Members who are in the trade union movement know very well that the Alternative Vote arrangements in force in their unions for the election of officers, operate so as to increase the chances of the available man and to diminish to the lowest the chances of the man with positive views and imagination of his own. I believe there is no trade unionist who will deny that that is the tendency. So they will say that the. English people have such power of working even the impossibly bad system that the Alternative Vote does not do very much harm in politics after all. That is the only justification to be found for the Alternative Vote. At this moment, when all our energies ought to be bent to ensure that future Parliaments and future Governments shall represent, not any dull average level of opinion—[Laughter]—not the easily awakened risability of certain hon. Members, but shall represent on the contrary the determination of a minority—for it always is a minority that is active in Government—to do certain things and to push certain policies through; it is at this moment, when that is the supreme need of the country, that we are asked to pass a proposal which will, so far as any proposal can, ensure that future Parliaments and future Governments shall represent the negative dislikes of the electorate, and shall include and represent none of the driving force which this country so urgently needs.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'voting,' in page 2, line 10. stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 218.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[10.29 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Aske, Sir Robert
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Benson, G.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ayles, Walter
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Birkett, W. Norman


Alpass, J. H.
Barnet, Alfred John
Blindell, James


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, James.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Angell, Sir Norman
Batey, Joseph
Bowen, J. W.


Arnott, John
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Springs),


Brothers, M.
Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Romerll, H. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rothschild, J. de


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chater, Daniel
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Derwen)


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, W.
Scott, James


Cove, William G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Scurr, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sexton, Sir James


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dallas, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dalton, Hugh
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shillaker, J. F.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shinwell, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dudgees, Major C. R.
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Duncan, Charles
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Ede, James Chuter
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Edge, Sir William
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Elmley, Viscount
McShane, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


England, Colonel A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Foot, Isaac
Manning, E. L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Freeman, Peter
Mansfield, W.
Sorensen, R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
March, S.
Stamford, Thomas W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mathers, George
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Glassey, A. E.
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Millar, J. D.
Toole, Joseph


Granville, E.
Mills, J. E.
Tout, W. J.


Gray, Milner
Milner, Major J.
Townend, A. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Vaughan, David


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morley, Ralph
Walkden, A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Walker, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muff, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Harbord, A.
Murnin, Hugh
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Harris, Percy A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
West, F. R.


Hayday, Arthur
Oldfield, J. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
White, H. G.


Harriotts, J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hoffman, P. C.
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hopkin, Daniel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perry, S. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wise, E. F.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Isaacs, George
Pole, Major D. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jenkins, Sir William
Potts, John S.



John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pybus, Percy John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Charleton.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l. W.)
Astor, Viscountess


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Atholl, Duchess of


Albery, Irving James
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atkinson, C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)




Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fermoy, Lord
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Balniel, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fison, P. G. Clavering
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Beaumont, M. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Sir George


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ramsbotham, H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Boyce, Leslie
Grace, John
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ross, Ronald D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Hammersley, S. S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Simms, Major-General J.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K,
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerset, Thomas


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sueter, Rear Admiral M. F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Colman, N. C. D.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tinne, J. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, D. M.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Train, J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampton, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lymington, Viscount
Ward. Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland. A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Meller, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dixey, A. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston. s. M.)
Muirhead, A. J.



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
and Major Sir George Hennessy.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd March, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at this day's sitting.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words "voting at," and to insert instead thereof the word "conducting."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 218.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harbord, A.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Oldfield, J. R.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Ammon, Charles George
Herriotts, J.
Palin, John Henry.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hicks, Ernest George
Paling, Wilfrid


Arnott, John
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.


Ayles, Walter
Hopkin, Daniel
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Barnes, Alfred John
Horrabin, J. F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Barr, James
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Batey, Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Potts, John S.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardin, Central)
Isaacs, George
Pybus, Percy John


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, Sir William
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Blindell, James
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Raynes, W. R.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Richards, R.


Bowen, J. W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Brooke, W.
Kenworthy, Lt -Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brothers, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Rothschild, J. de


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Knight, Holford
Rowson, Guy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Burgess, F. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scott, James


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sexton, Sir James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lees, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, William G.
Leonard, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cowan, D. M.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sinkinson, George


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Day, Harry
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Denman, Hon. R. D
McElwee, A.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keigbley)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Duncan, Charles
McKinlay, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Ede, James Chuter
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Edge, Sir William
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, H.


Edmunds, J. E.
McShane, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell


Elmley, Viscount
Manning, E. L.
Strachey, E. J. St. Los


England, Colonel A.
Mansfield, W.
Strauss, G. R.


Foot, Isaac
Marcus, M.
Sullivan, J.


Freeman, Peter
Markham, S. F.
Sutton, J. E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marley, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mathers, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibbins, Joseph
Matters, L. W.
Tillett, Ben


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Glassey, A. E.
Middleton, G.
Tout, W. J.


Gossling, A. G.
Millar, J. D.
Townend, A. E


Gould, F.
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, David


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Granville, E.
Montague, Frederick
Walkden, A. G.


Gray, Milner
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Morley, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Watkins, F. C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, Thomas W,
Mort, D. L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Murnin, Hugh
West, F. R.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, H. G.




Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wise, E. F.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixey, A. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Albery, Irving James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fielden, E. B.
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beaumont, M. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gower, Sir Robert
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grace, John
Ross, Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Salmon, Major I.


Boyce, Leslie
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Simms, Major-General J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan, John
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield Hallam)


Buchan-Hapburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerset, Thomas


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thompson, Luke


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tinne, J. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Train, J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colville, Major D. J.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Wells, Sydney R.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Frederick Thomson.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert the words "or to any university constituency."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Division of certain double-Member constituencies.)

Amendments made: In page 2, line 24, leave out from the beginning to the word "shall," in line 25, and insert the words:
(2) Before preparing a scheme under this section the Commissioners shall hold a public local inquiry in the constituency to which the scheme relates and in preparing the scheme.

In page 2, line 27, leave out the words:

"so prepared by the Commissioners," and insert instead thereof the words "prepared under this section."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in relation to any such new constituency, paragraph 2 of the said Schedule shall have effect as if for the reference to the first day of October, nineteen hundred and seventeen, there were substituted, as respects the last column of the said Schedule, a reference to such date as is specified in that behalf in the scheme."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 219.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edmunds, J. E.
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Knight, Holford


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Elmley, Viscount
Lang, Gordon


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
England, Colonel A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, Isaac
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Ammon, Charles George
Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Angell, Sir Norman
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Arnott, John
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Susan


Aske, Sir Robert
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ayles, Walter
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Leach, W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Glassey, A. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Barr, James
Gossling, A. G.
Lees, J.


Batey, Joseph
Gould, F.
Leonard, W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Granville, E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Benson, G.
Gray, Milner
Logan, David Gilbert


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Longbottom, A. W.


Blindell, James
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowen, J. W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lunn, William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Baseetlaw)


Bromfield, William
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Macdonald. Sir M. (Inverness)


Brooke, W.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Brothers, M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McKinlay, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harbord, A.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Harris, Percy A.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Burgess, F. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McShane, John James


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hayday, Arthur
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Manning, E. L.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Herriotts, J.
Mansfield, W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hicks, Ernest George
Marcus, M.


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Markham, S. F.


Church, Major A. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marley, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Hoffman, P. C.
Marshall, Fred


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mathers, George


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Matters, L. W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Horrabin, J. F.
Maxton, James


Cowan, D. M.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Messer, Fred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Middleton, G.


Daggar, George
Isaacs, George
Millar, J. D.


Dallas, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Mills, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Milner, Major J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Montague, Frederick


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morley, Ralph


Day, Harry
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Duncan, Charles
Kelly, W. T.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)


Ede, James Chuter
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Mort, D. L.


Edge, Sir William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Muff, G.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tillett, Ben


Murnin, Hugh
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Tinker, John Joseph


Naylor, T. E.
Sanders, W. S.
Toole, Joseph


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandham, E.
Tout, W. J.


Noel-Buxton, Baronets (Norfolk, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Townend, A. E.


Oldfield, J. R.
Scott, James
Vaughan, David


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Scurr, John
Viant, S. P.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sexton, Sir James
Walkden, A. G.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Walker, J.


Palin, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wallace, H. W.


Paling, Wilfrid
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watkins, F. C.


Palmer, E. T.
Sherwood, G. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Perry, S. F.
Shillaker, J. P.
Wellock, Wilfred


Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
West, F. R.


Pole, Major D. G.
Sinkinson, George
Westwood, Joseph


Potts, John S.
Sitch, Charles H.
White, H. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Richards, R.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stephen, Campbell
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Ritson, J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wise, E. F


Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sullivan, J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Rothschild, J. de
Sutton, J. E.



Rowson, Guy
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thurtle, Ernest
Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Grace, John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Astor, Viscountess
Colman, N. C. D.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, Major D. J.
Hammersley, S. S.


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beaumont, M. W.
Cunliffe-Uster, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Dalkeith, Earl of
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Boyce, Leslie
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bracken, B.
Dugdale. Capt. T. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brass, Captain Sir William
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd-, Hexham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Buchan, John
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ferguson, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fermoy, Lord
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Butler, R. A.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lymington, Viscount


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd




Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Ross, Ronald D.
Thompson, Luke


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tinne, J. A.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Salmon, Major I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Train, J.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Muirhead, A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Savery, S. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Simms, Major-General J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


O'Connor, T. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Skelton, A. N.
Wayland, Sir William A.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, Sydney R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Penny, Sir George
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerset, Thomas
Withers, Sir John James


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Womersley, W. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captal


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton
Wallace.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Abolition of business premises qualification for registration except in the City of London.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 14, leave out from the word "London" to the end of the Clause.—[Mr. Clynes.]

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. T. Kennedy."]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Grant for development of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic systems.)

Major COLFOX: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "thirty-two," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
The effect of this Amendment is, of course, to reduce by £7,000,000 the amount of money which the Government are to be entitled to use for capital purposes for developing the postal and telegraph services. I move it in order to call attention to the fact that the nation's finances are in a perilously dangerous condition, a fact which appears to have escaped the notice of every Member of the Government and of every one of their supporters. Of course, I recognise
that this money is to be spent, partly, at any rate, if not entirely, on remunerative services which, it is hoped at any rate, will earn a return on the capital invested in them. I do not pose as an authority on the subject of how much capital the Post Office can usefully, at this present juncture, invest in these works, but I do say most emphatically that the present is not a time to go in for any reckless extravagance, nor is it a time to go in for any capital outlay except that which will earn an immediate and direct and substantial return. It is in order again to try to persuade the representatives of the Government to give the House some inkling as to their ideas and their intentions and the way in which they hope and expect to be able usefully to invest this money that I move the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I support the Amendment in order that we may get a further explanation from the Postmaster-General in addition to what we heard on Friday. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that all but £2,800,000 of the sum required was for telephones, but the House never heard any more about that £2,800,000. It would be a pleasure to all of us to know exactly the part of the postal service for which that sum is earmarked. £25,000,000 is a very vast sum. We have got accustomed to talking in millions, even the millions of people unemployed since the Government took office. We rather lose sight of how vast a sum it is. Taking it at its normal, or even
abnormal development which was promised, and which will certainly not be realised by the present Government, that would represent over two years' expenditure. The Government are not likely to last two years, and it is as well to put some sort of statutory limit, less than the amount that they demand but sufficient to carry on the hand to mouth existence which is unfortunately their lot.
The whole question of the telephones is one which the Government have always talked a great deal about but have done very little for. The same may be said of the Liberal party. The two watch-dogs from Cornwall are here to see that anything that appears in a yellow or any other kind of book is supported by the Government in regard to telephones. I have never been able to understand, whether £32,000,000 or £25,000,000 is to be expended in the period in question, why the Government and their allies think it is going to be a great help with regard to unemployment. The great proportion of this too vast sum is obviously to be devoted to buying sites for new telephone exchanges, and one reason for moving this Amendment is to draw attention to what I am sure is well within the knowledge of great masses of Members of the House, the apparently uneconomic system under which the Post Office Telegraphs Department purchases sites. Of course, it does it in conjunction with the Office of Works, but if you ever go up the North Road, as I do, you would be surprised, as I am, to find how in different places brand new telephone exchanges have been built.
I do not want the excuse that it was done by their predecessors, because the same policy is still going on, and I blame their predecessors, if it is their fault, as much as hon. Members opposite. I say that in order to forestall any kind of criticism of that sort. I know the ineffectiveness of the present Government. They always shield themselves behind what someone else has done. You will find examples, for instance, on Finchley Road; and when you come to Hendon you find the same thing. I admit that they are very beautiful, very nicely built in the best Georgian style, red-brick, telephone exchanges, bang upon those big trunk roads on sites which must be of very great value if we are to believe
what is said on the Finance Bill with regard to site values arising out of trunk roads. I cannot for the life of me see why telephone exchanges should be put upon the main road at all. There has been a great deal of talk with regard to Employment Exchanges being put upon main roads, and the explanation is that you have to have them somewhere handy for the unemployed, but, when you come to telephone exchanges, there is no point in it, because the only people who appear to go into telephone exchanges are visitors. That is no excuse for putting them upon the trunk roads. Any place is just as good for wires coming in and messages going out as main roads.
Keeping one's eyes open as one drives about the countryside, and in our big cities, and in this great metropolis of ours, I can quote other instances. I quote the instance of the exchange outside Sloan Station on the Underground which has been placed upon an admirable site. It is quite unnecessary there. There is a lot of property in the neighbourhood which I should say is not worth one-fifth of the land upon which the telephone exchange is built. I hope that by reducing this sum to £25,000,000 there will be a little less to jingle in the pockets of the Postmaster-General or the First Commissioner of Works, so that between them they cannot carry on this policy of putting telephone exchanges upon sites which are found to be too valuable. There is a great deal more to be said about the telephones than that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If there is one thing which has been remarkable it has been the speeches of the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Postmaster-General during the past week on the subject of telephones.
I assume, in the absence of information to the contrary, that some part of the £2,800,000 which is not going to telephones, and which would not be part of the £7,000,000 which we propose should be cut out, must in some way go towards the postal services. The Assistant Postmaster-General prided himself upon the efficiency and the actual speed with which letters which are posted get delivered. If any of this money is going towards developing that service—I do not quite know in what way, as there was no explanation given—I warn the
Postmaster-General to be a little careful. If the postal services are so good as was claimed, there is very little ground for spending any more money. It would be pure waste. As a matter of fact, I join with the Postmaster-General for once in a way and congratulate him about the postal services.
I think that the speed with which letters are delivered in London is quite amazing, but I leave it at London. I will given an instance which happened to me last week. Someone rang me up at half-past ten, and, as a result of a telephone message, they wrote a letter which came through the post and was delivered in another part of London to my house by the one o'clock postal delivery. I think that that is astounding, but I wish it were true of other parts of the country. It is not true by a very long way. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the Labour Government!"] The Labour Government have not captured London yet, and I suppose that that is why London services are so good. In some of the cities, and in the rural areas outside the Metropolis the deliveries are pitiful beyond words. The absence of deliveries over the week-end is a matter to which some of the £2,800,000 might well be devoted, but how it may be done I do not know, because it is a capital charge.
I suppose that one of the objects on which some of the money will be spent will be telephone kiosks, as the Post Office, under the present régime, pride themselves on having built kiosks. I do not think kiosks ought to be encouraged. That is one of the reasons why I support the Amendment. Of all the abominations that have sprung up in the last two or three years nothing could be worse than these wretched telephone kiosks along our main streets. Very often they are placed in unsuitable positions from the point of view of communication, and also from the point of view of amenities, whether urban or rural. If at any time there was a queue of people waiting to telephone at any of these places, it would have a very dangerous effect upon the traffic control. I do not think there is any system about putting up the kiosks. If there are 10,000 of them along our public thoroughfares, I am very sorry, and I hope that no more of them will be put up.
If it is intended to improve rural call offices, I hope that a proportion of the £25,000,000 will be spent in that way. Instead of the Post Office saying how they are linking up the countryside for big business, we find that again and again the call office is put in a small post office. If you want to telephone something of a special nature, something of an intelligent anticipation of the result of the three-thirty, something that you do not want known by everybody, you go into the call office, which may be in a grocer's shop, or a chemist's shop, and the conversation is not private at all. The whole point of telephone conversation is that it should be private between yourselves and the gentleman or lady at the other end. If you go into the small shop and try to get your message through, you hear a succession of people buying patent medicines, or jujubes, or a thousand and one things, and the numerous occupations or pastimes of the village shop go on. That destroys the whole point of having a call office there. It is either a waste of money from the point of view of the telephone user to have the call office there or, alternatively, the Post Office must spend some of the £25,000,000 which we propose to allow them on the improvement of the privacy of the rural call offices.
If there is one thing of which everyone connected with a rural constituency, as I am, complains in regard to the telephone service, it is the delay which elapses if you want to be linked up to the telephone. I have in mind a case which I put before the Postmaster-General, or it may be his predecessor, because Postmasters-General come and go so quickly that one hardly knows with whom one is corresponding at any given moment. The Assistant Postmaster-General, with his usual courtesy, still stays on, and we are sure, in an uncertain world, to find him at the other end of the telephone. The case in question is, of course, still incomplete, and it is that of a doctor, a constituent of mine, who bought a practice, and 15 months have passed, and he is still without a telephone. The death of every man, woman or child that has occurred in the district with which that doctor is concerned, I put down to the account of the Post Office. The doctor is willing
to pay for the telephone, but he cannot get connected. First they send one lot of inspectors, then another lot of inspectors, and they say: "If you will wait three months we are going to have a new system and it will be cheaper." That happens all over the place. The only point of having a telephone at all is that if you are prepared to pay for it—and they are not given away by any means—you should be linked up with the national system as soon as possible. The countryside has quite a good deal chalked up against the Post Office, and if the Department is going to be granted the power to spend £25,000,000, we who sit for rural constituencies have not only the right but the duty to ask that something more should be done in regard to telephones in the rural areas. All this party line business, the question of having three, or four, or five people on the line, and every time the bell rings having to listen whether it rings twice, or three times, or four times, with your heart beating as you listen for the rings, is very unsatisfactory. It may be cheaper, but, unless it is very much cheaper and more effective, it is not a good way of having a telephone connection, because you are, again, depriving yourself of a certain amount of privacy. Someone else may be wanting to ring you up and at the same time gets all the other people on the party line. That is not satisfactory. I suggest that some of the £25,000,000 might be used towards doing something in that direction. If the telephones in London were run on that system there would be such chaos that it would come to an end within a month, but anything apparently is good enough for the countryside. Poor people in the country districts have to put up with antics which the citizens in the great towns and cities would not tolerate for five minutes.
I do not know, although I have done my best to find out, for what exactly this money is to be used. Advertising is not covered because that is not capital expenditure; and intensive advertising of "use the telephone more," or "we have nicer and brighter instruments," would come under the Vote. The Postmaster-General says that they now have a large number of spare parts; I mean the Post Office, not the Postmaster-General. The
hon. Member expressed his pride that the Post Office had enough spare parts to go on for a long time. If that is so I do not see that they require so much money. The country is going through an economic crisis. That is all that hon. Members opposite can say. They call it an economic blizzard. Obviously it is not a good thing to borrow too much for capital for public services in an economic blizzard. At any rate, we on this side do not think it is, and a fortiori it is a bad thing to borrow a lot of money on spare parts if you have all the spare parts you want. I want to hear a good deal more from the hon. Member about spare parts. He is pleased with the Post Office. He has not been there very long; and I suppose he will not be there very long. If we have had 25 Postmasters-General in 50 years we are just as likely to have 26 in 51 years.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Posting is a moveable thing.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That must be a quotation from the Yellow Book, because I do not recognise it as a very valuable interjection to my remarks. The Postmaster-General is very proud of his Post Office. He said that the Post Office already supplies a good service. He told us that the other day, and said that he would not stand in a white sheet about telephones. He must be the only person in the world who is not prepared to stand in a white sheet about telephones, because the more one hears telephones discussed, the more one goes into the matter oneself, the more convinced one becomes that it is a very bad service, and that it ought to be immeasurably better for the price that we have to pay for it. Of course, if it was a cheap and nasty thing, one might be inclined to say, "It does not cost very much, and we cannot help ourselves," but it is a frightfully expensive service. From 10,000 to 12,000 subscribers give up the telephone service every year because they cannot afford to pay any more, and because the service is so bad, and they are charged for all sorts of fancy calls that they know they have never had. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use some of the £32,000,000 or £25,000,000 on a little more experimenting to see, for example, whether he cannot get some better system of checking calls. Before
the War, I believe, the Post Office used to keep some kind of record of the letters sorted per minute per person, and there were comparable statistics. They may still exist, for all I know. Is there anything of the kind done with regard to the connections made by telephone operators? Could not some of this money be used for experiments. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise some automatic system recording for each telephone instrument how many calls are made. It might be possible to invent some method by which every time a receiver is taken off there would be some kind of automatic check on an instrument to show how many times a call had been made. [Interruption.] I must apologise for interrupting the conversation amongst hon. Members opposite.

Mr. TOOLE: I accept your apology.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have summed up the case that I wanted to put to the Postmaster-General. I hope that he will realise that £32,000,000 is rather too much to ask this House to part with at present. It has to be remembered that if the Bill goes through—and we do not know much about it—the Estimates will be approved by the Treasury and Parliament will not be concerned with it again until the next demand, after a period of two or three years, when this money has been exhausted. We think that £25,000,000 is quite enough. We think that there is ample ground for doing a great deal more development work in the rural areas with regard to telephones. We think that the sites bought for exchanges are in many cases far too valuable for that kind of purpose. We think that there are grounds for improving the call boxes in the small post offices in the countryside. We think that a case has been made out for reducing telephone charges; we would like to know what the £2,750,000, which is not for telephones, is for, and we adhere to the view that, in spite of the fact that the Postmaster-General is not in a white sheet, or any fancy garment of that kind, he has not yet proved the case which he set out to prove. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Pybus) is very vocal. I understand that he is advertising in Holland "Come to Britain," and he seems to think that this House is a good
place in which to advertise "Come to the Liberal party."

Mr. PYBUS rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he must not remain standing if the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee does not give way.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to turn his back to the Chair and address another hon. Member?

The CHAIRMAN: It would be better if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made a practice of always addressing the Chair.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I was just about to finish by reminding the right hon. Gentleman of exactly why we were moving this Amendment. The Postmaster-General says that he is not in a white sheet, but he said nothing on Friday in answer to the points which were raised. I am waiting optimistically to hear whether he has anything to say now in reply to what hon. Members on this side have so conclusively proved—that owing to the way in which the telephones have been run during the last decade, the time has come for the Government seriously to consider whether the whole service should not be divorced from the Post Office and put into some form of public utility corporation.

The CHAIRMAN: That matter does not arise on this occasion.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I apologise if my last words were out of order but I had finished.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I do not know where the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) spent the week-end, but the change in his attitude to-night, from that adopted by hon. Members above the Gangway on Friday last is so complete as to provoke in an ordinary Member like myself a certain amount of wonderment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not think that I require any information from the hon. and gallant Member. [Interruption.] I
do not require any more information from the hon. Member, because on Friday the Noble Lord who was then leading his party was very dissatisfied with the amount of money which the Government proposed to spend, and on two points on which he addressed the House he made some very interesting remarks. He said, referring to the unemployment aspect of the scheme:
How have America dealt with the situation? Although there has been this great falling off in telephone demands in America, in 1930 the American Bell Company spent £117,000,000 on telephone development.
Why did they do that? The Noble Lord went on to say:
In the first place to give employment to their fellow countrymen at a time of unemployment; and, secondly, in order that they may be prepared in every part of their 6ysiem to take advantage of the demands which they know will come directly times improve. I commend that example very respectfully to the Postmaster-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1931; cols. 1506–7, Vol. 252.]
But there must be some other reason than the reasons which he has stated why this Amendment has been moved, and why the House has been kept to this late hour and will, I suppose, be kept a considerable time still.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry that the Postmaster-General has not risen, because I should have been in the happy position of being able to support him. I rise to say that I am afraid that I shall not be able to support my hon. Friends in their Amendment, and I hope that they will not press it to a Division. Of course, I recognise, and we all know, that the constitutional method—and I think that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—of drawing attention to grievances is to move a reduction of the Vote, a thing that we have all done, even though we did not desire to see the total expenditure reduced. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was perfectly in order in making this proposal, and I am in thorough agreement with many of the criticisms that he made with regard to the Post Office, but in my view these matters could really be better raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," because on that very big question all these matters can
be discussed, and ought to be discussed; and I am sure that hon. Members opposite, who believe in Parliamentary control of the Post Office and who are always boasting of the opportunities that we have in this House for raising these matters, will not grudge us two or three hours in which to discuss these questions.
Personally, I could not vote for a reduction in this expenditure. I am just as keen on economy as is my hon. and gallant Friend, but this is capital investment, and my complaint against the Government, and against the whole system on which our telephones are run, is that we are not developing that great industry anything like as fast as we ought to be developing it. That is a question which can be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," and I hope we shall discuss it on that Question, and discuss it fully, because there is a great number of points which were left unsettled as a result of the speeches of the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am sure it would be a great mistake to try to curtail the amount of money at the disposal of the Government for developing telephones. I want to give them all the money that they can usefully and profitably spend. I quite agree that we must not spend money unremuneratively, but the telephone service, when properly run, can make a profit. I want to see the amount of capital invested in the telephone service greatly expanded; I want to see it giving more employment and making more profits for the State, or for the public utility company, whichever it is. I want to see the service develop, and we cannot do that by limiting the amount of money at the disposal of the Postmaster-General. The hon. Gentleman is not making anything like an adequate contribution towards solving the unemployment problem. I want to give him no excuse that we have any responsibility in the matter. The more money he asks for, provided he can say that it will be economically and profitably spent, the better pleased I shall be, but he must show that he is capable of running the service at a profit.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I desire to bring to the attention of the Postmaster-General a matter in connection with
telephones that affects my constituents. If this money is to be devoted to the development of the telephone service, we must have an efficient service to offer to the new subscribers, and unless we can satisfy those who are already subscribers, many of them will discontinue using the telephone, and we shall not have to use this money on development. I want to draw attention to the money that has to be deposited by subscribers against their trunk call accounts.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that arises on the Post Office Vote, and not on this Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am suggesting that this will deter the development of the telephone service. Owing to this question having come so prominently before subscribers, and the fact that they have been threatened in some cases with a discontinuance of the service, I am satisfied that we shall not require this large sum of money for development because we shall have the telephones of the people who have given up using them, and these can be let to people who are not yet using them. There is the question whether this money is required. I was told by the Postmaster-General on the 11th May that he had £2,804,000 in hand belonging to subscribers, and that it was yielding £133,000 in interest a year. In my constituency, we have over 600 fish merchants who have to use the telephone extensively; many of them are in a small way of business, and it is a serious inroad on their capital to have to find this deposit. If they increase their business, that means an increased use of the telephone, and the deposit is increased accordingly. The hon. Gentleman said he was inquiring into this matter. Is he doing it now, or will he do it at some later date? It is a matter of great urgency, particularly in view of the fact that we are asked to vote a large sum of money for development. The best advertisement you can have for the telephone is an efficient service. Another point is that if we are to get people to use the telegraph service more and so justify us in going in for developments we must deal with the question of losses occasioned by errors on the part of operators in the transmission of telegrams. I have had on many occasions to bring to the notice of the right
hon. Gentleman cases in which mistakes have been made in the prices of fish—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must reserve those references to the Post Office Vote. We are dealing here with developments.

Viscount WOLMER: Is not my hon. Friend in order in advocating an extension of the telegraph service, so that these errors may become less frequent?

The CHAIRMAN: He may advocate an extension of the system, but questions of administration cannot be raised.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to contest your Ruling, but with some experience of the House it seems to me a somewhat novel Ruling and I am anxious to know what it entails. The proposal before us is to spend a sum of £32,000,000
as may be required by the Postmaster-General for developing according to estimates approved by the Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems.
I submit that when the Committee are considering a proposal of this kind it is open to any hon. Member to discuss how the money shall be spent, and that the existing telegraphic system may well be taken into account. How can hon. Members decide to authorise the expenditure of the additional money if they cannot express their satisfaction with the way in which the existing system is being carried on? This is a proposal to spend money on the postal, telephone and telegraph systems and I submit that, within limits, it is in order to discuss the existing system.

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord has just said "within limits" and I agree, but the hon. Member for Grimsby was going beyond the limits.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: We are asked to vote money for the benefit of the postal, telegraph and telephone services—

Mr. PYBUS: And the fish.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Yes, it is a fact that we want to develop the fish trade, because it is the one industry in this country which has increased employment in the past year.

Mr. MUFF: Thanks to Hull.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: No.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a discussion as to the merits of Hull and Grimsby.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Surely you will give me the right to reply? Grimsby was the pioneer that made the fishing industry. I suggest that a development of the telegraph service can be brought about by an increased use of the service by the people engaged in this industry, but that we shall not get it unless there is satisfaction with the service. In some cases there has been a difference of 4s. a stone in the prices of the fish, and the man who has received the inaccurate telegram has ordered three times as much fish as he otherwise would have done, and that has meant a tremendous loss. I have been requested by my constituents to oppose this proposal unless we get some satisfaction from the Post Office.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: It has become a fashion among certain hon. Members to say that the telephone system of this country is atrociously bad. I have often been in the United States, over a period of 14 or 15 years, and I have understood that, according to Americans, the system in the United States is the worst in the world. I can only imagine that the people of each country have the impression that their own particular system is the worst there is. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether this money will enable him to make some provision for facilities for telegraphing money on Sundays. There are cases which might arise which might be of a serious character. I happen to know one case which occurred only last Sunday, in which it was desirable to call a certain person back to this country beause a relative was dangerously ill, and it was necessary to telegraph money to enable that person to return. On inquiry at the telegraph office it was found that there were no facilities for sending the money. The result was that a delay occurred in getting the person back and the relative died without seeing him. Even if it is a question of only one or two lives, I suggest that these facilities ought to be granted, and, if this money would help the Postmaster-General to do so, I should strongly support it. I have only given one instance, but there are many cases in which it is necessary to send money in this way. Therefore, I do ask the right
hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to use any of this money to give these facilities on Sundays. After all, it is not a banking transaction, and there is no reason why the money should not be telegraphed.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We all have grievances against the Post Office, and naturally put the case of our constituents. I would like to put the case for the rural areas. In Lindsey a year ago there were 16 parishes with over 200 inhabitants which were without a telephone. There is one close to me, an ecclesiastical parish with over 300 inhabitants, which is four miles from the nearest telephone call box. Why does not the Postmaster-General cast his bread upon the waters and try to get an interest in telephone development in those parts? I would also like to draw attention to the instructions given to his inspectors who are sent round to put forward an impossible case. I am on a party line because that is the only way we in rural areas can get a telephone. An inspector called on me and proposed that I should go on an automatic exchange, which needs a minimum of six or eight subscribers. In the first place, the cost would be £6 or £7 a year more. Secondly, I should have to pay twopence a call. The third snag was that the people who were left on the party line would have to pay the amount of my subscription. Those are three bad snags. Why should the other subscribers have to pay if one man leaves a party line, especially to go on an automatic exchange?
One of my constituents had an experience about call boxes similar to that already described. It was one of those kitchen telephones, and he could not get-through because there was an infant there who was going to have convulsions. It is absurd to have this kind of call box where infants and cats and clogs and hens can come in and interrupt. We want an assurance from the Postmaster-General that he will put these rural call boxes in proper places.
12 m.
We do not know, from the statement of the Minister, how he distinguishes between capital expenditure and ordinary year-to-year expenditure, and I can see the difficulties of the Chair in deciding whether these matters should be discussed on this Bill or on the Post Office Vote.
Is this money to be spent on putting up telephone stations, or on automatic exchanges Is every telephone that is installed in a house a matter of capital expenditure or year-to-year expenditure? We should be better advised as to how we should vote if we heard how the distinction is to be made, because, from the point of view of economy, there is nothing so wrong as to be unable to separate capital from yearly expenditure. That has been the fault of the whole Department in the past, and I hope that a new system will be instituted, so that the House may know what is capital and what is yearly expenditure.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): I think the Noble Lord the. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) will recognise that the attacks which have been made from the back benches on his side of the Committee have been attacks more on his administration than on mine, and he has pointed out their errors. As a matter of fact, I was going to give the Noble Lord a first-class advertisement, for I was going to ask the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) to read the extremely eloquent speech which the Noble Lord made a few days ago on that subject. On the whole, I think the hon. and gallant Member has been fully answered by the Noble Lord. I do not think that anyone could answer completely the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He gave us a rather long and chatty account of his life history with regard to the telephone, and, between him, the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), we have had placed before us a series of rural scenes in Lincolnshire and a number of more or less interesting stories. Most of the complaints were, as was recognised by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth, complaints relating to administration, and, accordingly, would not come within the scope of discussions on this Bill, which, as the hon. and gallant Member said, deals with capital expenditure. I shall be very pleased to deal with those points on the proper occasion, but I should be out of order if I attempted to deal now with
the fish and kitchen points, because they are purely points of administration.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if the Committee which is inquiring into the question of development makes a favourable report, he will get more subscribers.

Mr. ATTLEE: I know the case which the hon. Member has sent me, and it is receiving constant attention, but it would not be in order for me to discuss the details of the matter, nor to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine), which, again, was a point of administration. I confess that I did not, perhaps, quite fully grasp the details of that complaint. I think it is abundantly clear that the subject of this Amendment is no party question—that the Division is not on party lines, but merely between hon. Members on the benches opposite, who have happened to be present, one at one Debate and one at another, and who have not heard all that has been said. I leave them to cancel out, and I rest my case against the Amendment on the ground of the long experience of the Noble Lord, some five years—much longer than the average tenure of office of a Postmaster-General. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: The Government is so united, its supporters so thoroughly agree with its policy and are so friendly with each other that they can afford to speak of the very small differences between my hon. Friends behind me and my Noble Friend in the contemptuous tone that the Postmaster-General has employed. As a matter of fact, the difference of opinion is very small if it exists at all. What my hon. Friends have endeavoured to ascertain are the reasons for which the House is asked to authorise the spending of this large sum of money. My Noble Friend has pointed out that he has no objection to the spending of money if it is productive expenditure. As far as I know, my hon. Friends have exactly the same view, but they want to know what are the reasons which have induced the Government to come forward with these proposals. The hon. Gentleman has been talking about questions which have been answered. There is one question which
has most emphatically not been answered in any of the Debates that we have had in connection with the Bill. That is the mystery—for it is nothing less—which has arisen over the statement made originally by the Lord Privy Seal on the subject of telephone development, the actual results which have followed that speech and, further, the request for this large sum of money. May I recall what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1929:
We have no right to say to a private employer, 'You speed up' without making a similar appeal to Government Departments. Consequently, we asked the Post Office what they would do. In response to the appeal we made, the Post Office have decided to accelerate their programme, and they propose spending £750,000 this year and £750,000 next year on extensions of the telephone programme.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 666, Vol. 231.]
That was in the days of the Dominion Secretary's most splendid expansiveness, when everything in the Government garden was lovely and promised the most wonderful blooms in the future. After that speech we naturally expected that there would be some attempt to put what was a definite pledge into operation. What are the figures of the actual expansion that has taken place? They were given by my Noble Friend previously but no answer of any kind was made by the Postmaster-General. In 1929 the money spent on telephone development was £10,199,000, in 1930–31 £10,054,000 and in 1930–31 £10,000,000. So that for the financial year that has just closed it was less than the last year when the late Government was in office, though the Lord Privy Seal said that they were going to spend £750,000,000. [Interruption.] There is some excuse for that slip, because in the same Debate the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) gave figures which at one period of his speech he described as £7,000,000 and at another as £70,000,000. The actual figure was £750,000. In view of this statement and of the serious issues involved, one would have supposed that the Postmaster-General, in the course of the previous discussion, would have given the reasons for this remarkable gap or the complete difference between the promise which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and what actually has occurred.
I understand that on a previous occasion the Postmaster-General did say that the alteration in what was promised was due to the fact that the costs of production of telephones had greatly decreased. Does it account—and this is a question which I hope will be answered either by the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General—for the whole of this vast mistake in the Estimate? That is to say, is it a fact that they have actually developed the telephone system to the extent promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and that the great fall in the cost of materials is responsible for the fact that the sum of money is not greater? If that is so, I hope that you will allow me to ask the following question of the Postmaster-General. Why has this remarkable fall in the cost of construction not been passed on in some way to the consumer—that is, the user? That is a substantial point which ought to be answered, and can be answered very shortly. In the absence of any reply, my hon. Friends are entitled to move the reduction that they have moved, because it would not seem, on the face of it, to be necessary to vote this extra sum of money in view of the fact that the Government have not expended the money that they said they would expend.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Some years ago I was successful in the Ballot for Notices of Motion in this House and was fortunate in drawing first place on Civil Service Estimates. I introduced a discussion on the question of the Post Office, and I was able to make certain suggestions at that time. I am glad to say that great developments have taken place since then. I am not one of those who are always running down the Post Office and the telephone system and saying that they are very bad, but there is still a great deal of room for improvement and development. Reference was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) to the economic blizzard behind which the Government are trying to take shelter. I am sorry to say that the officials of the Post Office have got into the same habit. When telephone lines break down they take shelter behind the blizzard.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: I will leave that point. I wish to say something with regard to the postal service before I come back to telephones. The postal service is another thing which might be improved by a certain amount of capital expenditure. There are many villages round me which do not get a second post. They have only one post in the morning.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is clearly going beyond the limits of the discussion.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: On that point of Order. I have been looking up exactly what was allowed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I find that on several occasions the Postmaster-General brought the Service into the discussion. He said:
We believe that we are already supplying a good service."—[OFFICIAL REPOET, 15th May, 1931; col. 1553, Vol. 252.]
And he devoted a considerable portion of his speech to that particular matter, as also did the Assistant Postmaster-General. I think that Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. The Assistant Postmaster-General actually commenced his speech by saying:
We are anticipating, as a result of an intensified system of canvassing and so on, that we shall be able to increase the demand for the telephone service, and we shall be able, we hope, at no distant date, to justify our asking for a further sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1931; col. 1495, Vol. 252.]
I have marked other pages, in which the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster - General brought these matters into consideration in asking the House to gave a Second Reading to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the Second Reading stage. This is the Committee stage, and we cannot traverse the whole case for Second Reading.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to argue that there should be greater capital development to improve the postal service in particular villages by the provision of more vans, or more post offices, or any other things that could be provided by capital expenditure.

The CHAIRMAN: The breaking down of wires has nothing to do with capital expenditure.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: May I not refer to development of the postal service by means of motor bicycles?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member can deal with development, but not with past administration.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I will show where that development is necessary. Many villages have no second post. A second post might be provided by means of more vans or more motor bicycles. Papers arrive at a certain postal town at nine o'clock in the morning, but they are not delivered in a neighbouring village until next morning. If the postman was supplied with a motor bicycle he might go back and fetch the papers.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is going beyond the scope of the business before us.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Should I be in order in referring to the telephone charges made to nursing associations?

The CHAIRMAN: If it affects development.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: Nursing associations are very important in country areas, and it is very important that the nurses should be on the telephone, but the Postmaster-General is very hard-hearted in regard to the matter. If a woman belongs to a nursing association or is a nurse whose name appears in the telephone directory, he insists on charging the business rate.

The CHAIRMAN: That is purely administrative. This Bill is for the purpose of development.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: If he did not make that charge more telephones would be used and more development would take place. I hope that he will make a cheaper charge in these worthy cases. I should like to know how much of the money will be spent this year, and how many men he considers will he employed.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but the question is of so much importance to the country as a whole that I must say a few words in support of the Amendment and emphasise the necessity of improving telephonic communication in rural areas referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). The committee presided over by Lord Weir reported that many economies could be effected if telephone and telegraphic communications were transferred from the Government to private ownership.

The CHAIRMAN: The Postmaster-General is asking for this money for the development of the present services.

Mr. BRACKEN: Is it not in order to argue that the development of the telephones would be much quicker if it was placed in the hands of a public utility corporation?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss the advantages of one system as against another. The Postmaster-General has come down to the Committee with a Bill for the development of the services over which he has control.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: If you compare the development that has taken place in other countries as compared with England you will find that it is much more rapid, and the Postmaster-General would be well advised to follow a progressive policy and not wait until he gets a certain number of subscribers in an area before going forward with the development of the service. In Canada, as a result of the progressive development of the telephone system, people living in the most remote areas are able to communicate with their neighbours in urban districts, whereas in England there is still room for improvement in that regard. The Postmaster-General would be well advised to concentrate upon a policy which would encourage subscribers far more than is the case at present. The costs of the telephone system in this country compared with other countries are very high, and if our telephone communications are to be developed satisfactorily, the Postmaster-General must pay great attention to the necessity and desirability of lowering these costs. I sincerely trust that he will bear these two points in mind and will endeavour to see both that the costs
to the consumer are reduced on the general basis of getting a larger number of subscribers, and that progress is made with a policy that will give satisfaction to the rural districts.

Mr. ALBERY: I want to raise a question that has to do with Post Office development and is of particular importance to part of my constituency. I was not fortunate enough to be called before the Postmaster-General made his reply, but it happens that in this particular case the Assistant Postmaster-General, probably, is more conversant with the facts than is the Postmaster-General. In my constituency there is the urban district of Northfleet, which has a population of more than 20,000.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. ALBERY: I was about to say that this urban district council have taken every step in their power to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General to the inadequate postal service which at present exists in that district. There is no Crown office in that district, which is an industrial area, indeed, a rapidly increasing industrial area. I can conceive of no district in which postal facilities are more necessary and where trade and industry are more likely to be hampered by inadequate Post Office facilities. That they themselves are warmly convinced of their need in this matter, is shown by the fact that the urban district councillors asked for a deputation to visit the Assistant Postmaster-General; and he received it. Various industries in that district also subscribed to a petition which was sent to the Assistant Postmaster-General. They have failed, however, and I myself am unable to discover up to the present what is the policy of the Post Office in the matter of granting a Crown office. All I can gather is this: they seem to think that unless a postal business exists for which postal facilities do not exist, they are not called upon to provide a Crown office. That does not take us very far. It is obvious that when the facilities are not available locally very great inconvenience is caused, as well as delay. One has to go and seek these conveniences elsewhere.
Most of the people in that district have to seek in Gravesend facilities they cannot
get at Northfleet. The Post Office appears to think—quite contrary to any-ordinary industrial undertaking—that they only have to supply facilities when the want of them has long been definitely felt and shown; and I suppose they have some kind of charts or graphs which show that a certain state has at last been arrived at. The place seems to be developing and opportunities are seen for sinking fresh capital and putting up buildings to supply obvious new demands. His friends in the co-operative movement would tell the Postmaster-General that their method of doing business is very different from that. In an attempt the other day to get a little information as to what might be the governing factor of the Post Office in this matter, I asked the Postmaster-General to give me the number of urban district councils with a population of over 20,000 which have not got a Crown office and also the number of urban district councils with a population under 20,000 that have got one. The reply was that the information was not available. That appears to me to be a very remarkable state of affairs, because it seems to imply that either the Post Office do not know the populations of the districts they serve or do not know the districts in which they have got Crown offices. If that is the case, how can they exercise any sound judgment in this matter? This is a matter of real urgency, and I hope that we may have some reply.

Mr. BRACKEN: I have the great honour to speak to-night from a prominent position on the Liberal benches, and I do so with great zest because at the last General Election the Liberal party devoted a great part of their programme to the development of telephones. I intervene only because of the remarkable intervention of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who raised some points of enormous public importance. One of these points, and the most important, was that the Lord Privy Seal's predecessor informed us that large schemes had been brought forward for the development of the telephone system. We were told that the Government had at last tackled this problem and were showing greater vigour than their predecessors. I do ask the Assistant Postmaster-General—and I protest against the gross discourtesy of the
Postmaster-General in not being here in a Debate of this importance—

An HON. MEMBER: He is getting something.

Mr. BRACKEN: I apologise, because I understand from the Lord Privy Seal that the Postmaster-General is getting something to eat. An opportunity now arises, however, for the newly appointed, active and busy Lord Privy Seal himself to contribute his quota to a Debate such as this. We are told that the Government have large schemes in hand for developing the Post Office system. Surely, we are entitled to know what those schemes are. The Debate has been singularly barren in ideas from the Government. We have had no help or guidance. I take my duties extraordinarily seriously, and I am bound to recur to the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] If I am out of order I would direct your attention to the monstrous conduct of an hon. Member at the Bar in interrupting me.

The CHAIRMAN: I notice that one hon. Member is certainly out of order.

Mr. BRACKEN: I notice that, too; and I would like to call your attention to it. I recur to the point raised by the Noble Lord. You permitted the Noble Lord in your charity to raise it, and surely you will permit a more humble Member to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is not the first time he has asked that question.

Mr. BRACKEN: Yes, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN: Also that it Is a rule that there shall be no repetition.

Mr. BRACKEN: I am not a skilled debater, and I also know from experience that you have to address a question in four or five different forms before you get an answer.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not answered four or five different ways, and that is why I am checking the hon. Member.

Mr. BRACKEN: I wish to reinforce the question that has been put to the Assistant Postmaster-General. We all realise that the Post Office in England
is an entirely moribund institution and that we are, in regard to telephones, in a worse position per capita than Iceland. To be behind Iceland in our telephone development is a very serious charge against the Poet Office. It is sheltering behind the economic blizzard in a monstrous way. I do hope that, in addressing this appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has been left in such mute inglorious solitude, that we shall be told whether he thinks we are doing enough for our telephones. I do not think that we are. I am sure that the present Government who have pleaded for a vigorous economic development will not let an opportunity such as this pass without putting real force behind this idea of telephone development. I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal to treat this matter seriously. There he is sitting, joking and sniggering with the First Commissioner of Works. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] Many Members on both the Liberal and Socialist benches envy you your office, Mr. Chairman, and are attempting to intervene.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You know what we call weeds in Scotland—bracken?

Mr. BRACKEN: I will not call your attention to the monstrous personal gibes of the hon. Member opposite, because I am addressing myself to a serious point, and I ask the Lord Privy Seal to rise and tell us—

The CHAIRMAN: Really, the Lord Privy Seal's schemes for development do not arise. It is the Postmaster-General's schemes that we are discussing.

Mr. BRACKEN: I entirely agree with you, or I may say that I respectfully agree with you, but unfortunately the Lord Privy Seal intervened and boasted about his schemes.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has said that several times now.

Mr. BRACKEN: But I have not referred to the present Lord Privy Seal's remarks. He told us that there are these large schemes, and I merely call attention to them now, because I am thirsting for information. It is a late hour and we are put to inconvenience waiting here, and I will now sit down in
the sure and certain hope of having a clear and definite reply.

Mr. BOWEN: We are accustomed at this hour, or perhaps a little earlier, to hear flippant speeches from the hon. Member who has just sat down.

Mr. BRACKEN: On a point of Order. Is it open to an hon. Member to come down to this House and accuse another Member of being flippant in matters of grave importance?

The CHAIRMAN: It is a word that may be used.

Mr. BOWEN: The hon. Member also referred to sniggering on occasions such as this. He has accused the Postmaster-General of being absent. He himself has not been in the House for very long. I saw him coming in and seeking information from Members around him as to what was happening and jot down notes. We have something to be thankful for that he has not used them all up. We are accustomed to hear this sort of speech on matters of great importance, and I suggest that he might address himself to matters of importance. This is not a time to be talking in this futile fashion. We had an opportunity to discuss this matter last Friday.

An HON. MEMBER: You talked for an hour.

Mr. BOWEN: In any case, for whatever length of time, I tried to talk sense.

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. Is this in order?

The CHAIRMAN: It is a great deal more in order than some of the other speeches.

Mr. PYBUS: May I point out that two blacks do not make a white?

Mr. BOWEN: If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to speak, I have no objection to stopping and to taking part in the fun. I can assure them that I can be as happy as they are in regard to attacking the Post Office. I am amazed to find, even from the Front Opposition Bench, protests against this Amendment, and our hon. Friend from Woolwich—

Sir K. WOOD: I bog your pardon.

An HON. MEMBER: Comrade Wood.

Mr. BOWEN: I leave that to the hon. Member for South Paddington to describe.

Mr. BRACKEN: On a point of Order, 1s it fair to accuse me of being Lord Beaverbrook's representative from South Paddington? I am the Member for North Paddington, and I object.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. BOWEN: The hon. Member is childish. I was pointing out that there is a difference of opinion on the benches opposite to-night and I am trying to assimilate it, but I have some considerable difficulty in doing so. The attacks which have been made upon the Post Office have not carried us very far, because there is nothing concrete about them. The suggestion that too much money is now being asked for has been contradicted by other speeches as to the smallness of the amount. I would like to join with hon. Members opposite and ask the Postmaster-General to take them at their word and spend, not £32,000,000, but £132,000,000, and then see where we would get. Many of the propositions made, however, would involve the Post Office in millions of expenditure without any fresh development. If the country desired Sunday delivery of letters, it would involve millions of expenditure which was cut down by a Tory Government because the expenditure was too heavy. If the Tory Opposition desire its restoration, so far so good, but a good many of those who suggest this change in practice do not mean it. Attempts have been made to deride the Post Office for the purpose of continuing the Debate. [Interruption.] I do not often speak in this House, and I listen patiently to wearisome speeches from the benches opposite, so that at least I am entitled to a turn and to make some comments on the situation. In the proposals which have been made for the Sunday delivery and the extension of postal services by means of motor vans, an expenditure of millions would be involved. The Post Office at present is emerging from the policy inflicted upon it by a Conservative Government. I happen to know something about these things, because for years before I got into Parliament I read the Debates in this House on this subject. When the
Conservatives were on this side, one never heard speeches of the type we have heard to-night, especially when they involved expenditure. I do not believe that the Post Office staff is spending sufficient. I would like them to spend very much more.
There is, however, an air of unreality about all this Debate, because the whole explanation was given on the Money Resolution and was repeated last Friday, so that the Committee ought to be in no doubt at all as to the position. It is a process of triennial development and there ought to be no difficulty about it at all. I would, of course, like to see the £32,000,000 much increased. If that were proposed, would hon. Members share with us the desire that that should be done? If the test came, and the Post Office had the chance, we should see some remarkable results and developments of the telephone and telegraph services. In conclusion, I would urge that, if we are to have a discussion on the Post Office, it should be a real discussion in which we can consider the matter from the constructive point of view. I would then be prepared to deal with the question at any time hon. Members opposite desire to discuss it. There ought to be no difficulty in getting a real discussion on the Post Office, and not one which is not likely to lead anywhere, which is a mockery of a discussion, and which ought to be ended.

Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. Member charged us with keeping this discussion going and said that he seldom spoke in this House. That may be true, but, when he does, he speaks at some length. In the Debate on Friday it was impossible for many hon. Members on this side to speak, in view of the wish of the Postmaster-General to reply to the Debate, for more than a few moments whereas reference will show that the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) filled some 10 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It ill lies in his mouth therefore to reproach hon. Members on this side of the House with the few remarks that they wish to offer to the Committee to-night. We have as yet heard nothing from either the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General as to where exactly this money is going to be spent. The Assistant Postmaster - General drew
specific attention to one figure, a sum of £2,800,000 which would not be spent on the telephone service. He has not given us any details as to how that is to be spent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russian timber."] The hon. Members who said that have perhaps some inside information culled from the "Daily Herald." The Assistant Postmaster-General paid a tribute to the work of the postal officials. That is one matter on which there is strong accord in this House. There is no Member on either side of the House who would not wish to pay his tribute to the work of the postal officials in all departments. Their work is beyond praise and their efficiency and courage beyond dispute. But the hon. Member was perhaps a little unfortunate in the examples he drew from the excellencies of the postal service.

The CHAIRMAN: The subject under discussion is the development of the postal service.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am anxious to avoid any point of Order. The Assistant Postmaster-General pointed out—

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members must not make Second Reading speeches tonight.

Commander SOUTHBY: Would I be in order in asking how this money is being spent? The Assistant Postmaster-General said it was to be spent on the development of the postal service. What is this £2,800,000 to be spent on? How is it going to be spent to develop the postal service as distinct from the telephone service? I suggest that one of the ways in which there might well be development is in the increased use of the telephone service. In order to do that the sound policy is to reduce the cost of it. Speeches from both sides of the House have pointed out that the one thing that prevents the further development of the telephone service is the high cost of the installation and the high cost of the call. If this big sum of money is to be spent on development, then some of it at least should be spent in the reduction of the cost of installation so that people in humbler circumstances may instal it as they would if the cost were reduced.
One speaker has said that if we vote this £32,000,000 we lose all control and that makes it doubly necessary that we should find out what development the Minister has in mind. The hon. Member for the Everton division (Mr. Hall-Caine) drew a comparison between the telephone service in the United States and in this country, saying that people in the United States praised our service. Anyone who knows the telephone service in the United States will admit that it is far ahead of ours, so that they must have some secret of development, some method of working which gives that excellent service. The Postmaster-General might with profit study their methods and adapt them to this country in order that we may in due course have a telephone service comparable with the excellent service which now obtains in America. That development and high pitch of efficiency is, I may say, due to private enterprise. The Assistant Postmaster-General in his speech on Friday said that it was no uncommon thing, when one was paying a visit to friends, for the telephone bell to ring, but he would not repeat the words which were used when the telephone bell rang. I suggest that the words most often used when the telephone does ring, are "Sorry you have been troubled." There should be some means of improving the telephone service, so that we do not get the tremendous number of wrong numbers and wrong calls with which everybody is persistently troubled. The telephone service is nothing like as bad as some people make out or as perfect as others try to make out. The Postmaster-General should endeavour to mitigate the nuisances to which people in this country are now subjected. In conclusion, would it be possible in the improvement of the postal service for a certain amount of money voted now to be used in cheapening the postage on Braille paper for the blind?

The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order.

Commander SOUTHBY: I was afraid of that and will obey your Ruling. I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I deprecate remarks of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Crewe—

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Gentlemen beyond the Bar might be a little more quiet in their conversation.

1.0 a.m.

Commander SOUTHBY: In conclusion, may I say that I deprecate that the hon. Member for Crewe should wish to deny us an opportunity which offers to-night to put our point of view, even although the hour is late. It is the duty of the Committee to examine the way in which money is being spent, and it seems to Members on this side of the House that if reasonable points are put forward they should not be accused of obstructing the business of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman is spending money upon the improvement of the telephone service, he should consider the use of some of this money for the placing underground, instead of above ground, of telephone lines. It is infinitely more convenient, and poles constitute a great danger on high roads. The excuse in the past was that there was not sufficient money. It was stated that it could not be carried out on account of the high cost. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has in view the introduction of an underground service to take the place of the present above-ground service which necessitates the use of telephone poles. I hope we shall get from the Assistant Postmaster-General a little more information than the Postmaster-General has given us this evening as to how the £2,800,000 which is not earmarked for the telephone service is to be spent.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: I call no further Amendments on Clause 1.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. SMITHERS: The first point that I wish to make is that the development is taking place more rapidly in some of the areas around the big towns, especially round London. As houses go up new exchanges have to be organised and country districts taken into the London area. I want to ask the Postmaster-General whether, when he does this reorganisation, and uses money for this development, he will see that no subscriber already on a London exchange is in the reorganisation put on an exchange outside. When a subscriber has once been on a direct London exchange he should not, simply because of some piece of red tape under this reorganisation, have this
facility taken away, so that it should cost him more money by being put on a toll exchange. A large sum of money is being asked for, and I beg of him to use it wisely and not be bound by too much red tape. I want also to call his attention to a different type of case where a country village, with a small exchange, has developed. I understand that, under the present rules, if the pressure of the service gets too big for the postmaster, his wife and family, then the only alternative, if he is a sub-postmaster, is to build a new exchange, put in a caretaker and his wife and two or three operators at a capita] cost of £2,000 or £3,000, when possibly the whole thing could be overcome by allowing the existing sub-postmaster to have one assistant to live with the family at a cost of about £75 a year.
The hon. Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) raised one point which I want to reinforce. It is the question of looking ahead. I want the hon. Gentleman to learn from the experience of the past. I know one instance in my division where small poles were originally put up and then larger poles were put up after a few years. [Interruption.] Mr. Chairman, I do protest. I am trying under great difficulty to state a point and I get rude and insulting remarks. I was referring to the case of small poles originally put up and larger poles being substituted in a comparatively short time—within, about a year, if my memory serves me. The whole of the expenditure was wasted. The poles were pulled down, and the whole thing was put underground. I do beg of the hon. Gentleman not to fall into these faults. He should try to look ahead and see that wayleaves are obtained and that wires are put underground, or put in in a manner that will last. Again, in this reconstruction there will be a great deal of surplus material to be disposed of. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that the way in which some of the surplus material of the Post Office is disposed of is a perfect scandal.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not a very good illustration, surely.

Mr. SMITHERS: There must be a certain amount of pulling down to be done. I only wish to call attention to the way this material has been disposed of. It
has not been economical or businesslike. Is it not in order to speak about the way the money has been used?

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion now is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ALBERY: I put an important point in the last Amendment debated. I agree it was under unfortunate circumstances. The Postmaster-General went out to get refreshment. The Assistant Postmaster-General remained behind. By the time for the reply the Assistant Postmaster-General had gone out and the Postmaster-General had come back. I want to know what is the Post Office policy regarding this question. What is the approximate population of a district which the Postmaster-General considers to be sufficiently large to justify him in making expenditure for a public Crown office in that district. I have no desire to continue if I can get a reply from the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): I am sorry I had to go out and could not reply to the question of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) before. The hon. Member referred to a question placed on the Order Paper to which he received a written reply. We cannot lay down any hard-and-fast line in respect of population and allow that to determine whether a Crown office shall be opened or not. Many factors have to be taken into consideration. I know the hon. Member has in mind the position in Northfleet, a neighbouring district to Gravesend. He will be aware that we received a deputation from that area and went into the matter thoroughly. The fact of the matter is that the units of business at present done in Northfleet do not warrant the opening of a Crown office, more especially in view of the fact that there are already three sub-offices in the area. If we had, as desired, opened a branch office it would have meant a considerable decrease in those using these sub-offices. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. VIANT: In view of these circumstances, we should not be justified in
opening a Crown office in Northfleet. The matter is still being kept under observation, and immediately the business can justify the opening of a Crown office steps will be taken.

Mr. ALBERY: How can the units of business be done so long as the facilities for doing it do not exist? Much of the business is done in Gravesend, because there are no facilities for doing it in Northfleet.

Major COLFOX: I want to call attention to the fact that this money is to be spent on Estimates to be approved by the Treasury. It does not seem to me that that is nearly a sufficient safeguard, because I believe that all Estimates—and particularly Estimates for such a large sum of money as this—should be approved by Parliament and not by the Treasury. In that connection, I think we ought to have had a representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench to-night. If the time had not been so late, I should have had a great deal to say on the subject of control by Parliament, but I will curtail my remarks by reason of the late hour and will merely say that, whatever may have been the case in the past, the Treasury to-day is certainly not the watch-dog of the nation's finances. Whether the House of Commons is or is not, is certainly open to doubt as well. At any rate, the House of Commons should act as the responsible body—though very unfortunately the Members opposite do not do so. Consequently, these Estimates should be submitted to and passed by the House of Commons and not merely by the Treasury.

Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act.)

This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.—[Mr. C. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think the Government will accept this new Clause. It merely extends the time for the expenditure of this money to two
years. We all know that this is an emergency Measure for the purpose of spending a large capital sum on the telephones. The only justification given for this capital expenditure, which amounts to over-borrowing at a time when we are heavily over-borrowing already, is that it will be a means of using up a certain number of the people who are out of work and will develop the telephone system. The Government think that the telephone system is very good indeed, because the other day they pointed out that for practical purposes we were the third telephone nation in the world. It is clear that so far as the Government are concerned, if they believe in themselves to the same extent as they talk about themselves, we shall in two years have a telephone, system superior to that of any nation in the world.
On the other hand, there is this point. It is possible—and we are all hoping that it will be so—that in the course of two years we shall see a trade revival and that we shall then desire to get money back into real trade rather than into the telephones. The telephone assists trade, but it does not open up and develop new industries in other countries. For that reason, I think that in a small Bill such as this, which is not really controversial, you might lay down a small limit when you have a tremendous over-borrowing according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the Government will be able to accept the limitation laid down in the new Clause, because at the end of the two years they will be able, if it is necessary, to increase the programme of development by coming to the House again. I do not think it in any way compels the too-hasty expenditure of money. Under the Bill, as I understand it, it means that the Government can spend up to £32,000,000 in the two years. They have a surplus over from the time before, and it is rather more than the £32,000,000 that they want. I do feel that in such a position as we are in to-day, with a totally unknown expenditure in the

future, and vast borrowings in past years, it is essential in the interests of the national finances, when you are giving a Government Department great power for spending money, that you should lay down a definite and clear limit.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member who moved the new Clause fully sees its effect. So far as I can see, the only result would be that the raising of this sum and loaning it to the Post Office would be limited to the 31st of July, 1933. Therefore, the effect would be that if the sum had to be borrowed it would be borrowed in two and not three years. He seemed to indicate that we were making severe inroads on the borrowing powers of the country. This would restrict and not assist it. If we wanted it we should get it in two years, and, if we wanted any more, we should have to come back to Parliament. This Bill is founded on the principle of a former Bill. I remember when this formula was first introduced by the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), and the principle was that, if we wanted more, we should come to the House again. There is no point in this new Clause, and the Government cannot accept it.

Viscount WOLMER: I support this new Clause for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). The Postmaster-General has outlined a three-year programme which I regard as absolutely inadequate. I want him to spend the money in two years. If this new Clause is passed, he will not be forced to spend the money, but he will be given the chance to spend it, and he or his successor will be forced to come back to Parliament to give an account of how. the development had been going on.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 114.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[1.25 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Albery, Irving James
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Campbell, E. T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bracken, B.
Colville, Major D. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Inksip, Sir Thomas
Pybus, Percy John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, John R.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Lymington, Viscount
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


O'Connor, T. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Mr. Smithers and Mr. Charles


Penny, Sir George
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Williams.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Jenkins, Sir William
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rowson, Guy


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Kelly, W. T.
Sawyer, G. [...].


Alpass, J. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Scurr, John


Arnott, John
Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, James
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Shillaker, J. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Lawrence, Susan
Simmons, C. J.


Benton, G.
Lees, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Leonard, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Bowen, J. W.
Longden, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brooke, W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Buchanan, G.
McElwee, A.
Stephen, Campbell


Burgess, F. G.
McKinlay, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
McShane, John James
Sullivan, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Charleton, H. C.
Marcus, M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Clarke, J. S.
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Maxton, James
Townend, A. E.


Dallas, George
Messer, Fred
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Mills, J. E.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Milner, Major J.
Wallace, H. W.


Ede, James Chuter
Morley, Ralph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edmunds, J. E.
Muff, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Murnin, Hugh
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gill, T. H.
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Glassey, A. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gossling, A. G.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, M. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herriotts, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Hicks, Ernest George
Ritson, J.
Smith.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Romeril, H. G.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order, may I respectfully ask whether you have put Clauses 3, 4 and 5 to the House?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better look at another Bill. There are only two clauses in this one.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The Bill deals with a technical point, arising on the wording of the 1926 Act, which prevented East African Governments from raising loans. It corrects that difficulty. There has been a full discussion on both the Financial Resolution and the Second Reading, and I think it was generally agreed in all parts of the House that the Bill was desirable, and I shall be very glad if the House can see its way to give me the Third Reading now.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Northampton
Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 27th day of April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Stroud Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 14th day of April and published, be approved."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before Two o'Clock.